DH 2
10-07-2011, 07:10 PM
#51
RE: DH 2
Greg
I have a question for you......gather up your pocket protectors and put on your engineer thinking cap. Are you ready?
Consider your pole dancing incident with your third scale Pup.............
.
Ok, here's the question......how much more additional damage would there have been if you had used a different wing attach method?[:-]
I have a question for you......gather up your pocket protectors and put on your engineer thinking cap. Are you ready?
Consider your pole dancing incident with your third scale Pup.............
.Ok, here's the question......how much more additional damage would there have been if you had used a different wing attach method?[:-]
10-08-2011, 06:19 AM
#53
Banned
RE: DH 2
"gather up your pocket protectors and put on your engineer thinking "
You forgot "pocket slide rule" :-))))))))))))))) Still got one of those I found by accident, in the way back of a desk drawer, the other day.
Les
You forgot "pocket slide rule" :-))))))))))))))) Still got one of those I found by accident, in the way back of a desk drawer, the other day.
Les
10-08-2011, 06:54 AM
#54
RE: DH 2
ORIGINAL: LesUyeda
''gather up your pocket protectors and put on your engineer thinking ''
You forgot ''pocket slide rule'' :-))))))))))))))) Still got one of those I found by accident, in the way back of a desk drawer, the other day.
Les
''gather up your pocket protectors and put on your engineer thinking ''
You forgot ''pocket slide rule'' :-))))))))))))))) Still got one of those I found by accident, in the way back of a desk drawer, the other day.
Les
10-08-2011, 06:21 PM
#55
RE: DH 2
ORIGINAL: R/C Art
Greg
I have a question for you......gather up your pocket protectors and put on your engineer thinking cap. Are you ready?
Consider your pole dancing incident with your third scale Pup..............
Ok, here's the question......how much more additional damage would there have been if you had used a different wing attach method?[:-]
Greg
I have a question for you......gather up your pocket protectors and put on your engineer thinking cap. Are you ready?
Consider your pole dancing incident with your third scale Pup.............
.Ok, here's the question......how much more additional damage would there have been if you had used a different wing attach method?[:-]
Hi Art,
I see your point. The damage would have been about 300% worse. Instead of 1 totalled wing panel, I'd have lost 3. During the Flags of the Great War incident, the Pup's wing wires acted as fuses, with their anchor's pulling out during the impact. That then allowed the other two panels to slide out from their dowel holes, preventing them from sustaining further damage. That saved 90% of the other 2 panels. If everything had been built super strong for flight loads, the crash damage would have been much worse. I recognize that it's the same design philosophy as what's used on trainers where the wing is held on by rubber bands, they are meant to absorb kinetic energy in the event of a crash. Although not the strongest for flight loads, it is plenty strong enough & has the benefit of "give" during a mishap.
Regarding your photos on the previous page, nice job, with the progress you've got, you're making this look easy as usual.
Looks like you're definitely a fan of the wooden dowel method, as I was saying earlier it is proven effective & simple. Provided enough dowel length is used to allow for any wire stretch, it's hard to see this system failing unless the wires themselves break. I figure anybody using this method would use pairs of flying wires in each position anyway (like the 1/3 scale Pup), so there is a measure of redundancy there. It is interesting that you're building the panels in 2 sections. I hadn't thought to do it that way. If understand your description correctly, you'll leave the inner section connected to the center section once it's built. Why not build those inner sections as permanent parts of the center section, with the dihedral built right in? Is there a benefit to initial set-up doing it the way you described?
Greg
10-09-2011, 04:32 AM
#56
RE: DH 2
ORIGINAL: Eindecker_pilot
Hi Art,
I see your point. The damage would have been about 300% worse. Instead of 1 totalled wing panel, I'd have lost 3. During the Flags of the Great War incident, the Pup's wing wires acted as fuses, with their anchor's pulling out during the impact. That then allowed the other two panels to slide out from their dowel holes, preventing them from sustaining further damage. That saved 90% of the other 2 panels. If everything had been built super strong for flight loads, the crash damage would have been much worse. I recognize that it's the same design philosophy as what's used on trainers where the wing is held on by rubber bands, they are meant to absorb kinetic energy in the event of a crash. Although not the strongest for flight loads, it is plenty strong enough & has the benefit of ''give'' during a mishap.
Regarding your photos on the previous page, nice job, with the progress you've got, you're making this look easy as usual. Looks like you're definitely a fan of the wooden dowel method, as I was saying earlier it is proven effective & simple. Provided enough dowel length is used to allow for any wire stretch, it's hard to see this system failing unless the wires themselves break. I figure anybody using this method would use pairs of flying wires in each position anyway (like the 1/3 scale Pup), so there is a measure of redundancy there.
It is interesting that you're building the panels in 2 sections. I hadn't thought to do it that way. If understand your description correctly, you'll leave the inner section connected to the center section once it's built. Why not build those inner sections as permanent parts of the center section, with the dihedral built right in? Is there a benefit to initial set-up doing it the way you described?
Greg
ORIGINAL: R/C Art
Greg
I have a question for you......gather up your pocket protectors and put on your engineer thinking cap. Are you ready?
Consider your pole dancing incident with your third scale Pup..............
Ok, here's the question......how much more additional damage would there have been if you had used a different wing attach method?[:-]
Greg
I have a question for you......gather up your pocket protectors and put on your engineer thinking cap. Are you ready?
Consider your pole dancing incident with your third scale Pup.............
.Ok, here's the question......how much more additional damage would there have been if you had used a different wing attach method?[:-]
Hi Art,
I see your point. The damage would have been about 300% worse. Instead of 1 totalled wing panel, I'd have lost 3. During the Flags of the Great War incident, the Pup's wing wires acted as fuses, with their anchor's pulling out during the impact. That then allowed the other two panels to slide out from their dowel holes, preventing them from sustaining further damage. That saved 90% of the other 2 panels. If everything had been built super strong for flight loads, the crash damage would have been much worse. I recognize that it's the same design philosophy as what's used on trainers where the wing is held on by rubber bands, they are meant to absorb kinetic energy in the event of a crash. Although not the strongest for flight loads, it is plenty strong enough & has the benefit of ''give'' during a mishap.
Regarding your photos on the previous page, nice job, with the progress you've got, you're making this look easy as usual.
Looks like you're definitely a fan of the wooden dowel method, as I was saying earlier it is proven effective & simple. Provided enough dowel length is used to allow for any wire stretch, it's hard to see this system failing unless the wires themselves break. I figure anybody using this method would use pairs of flying wires in each position anyway (like the 1/3 scale Pup), so there is a measure of redundancy there. It is interesting that you're building the panels in 2 sections. I hadn't thought to do it that way. If understand your description correctly, you'll leave the inner section connected to the center section once it's built. Why not build those inner sections as permanent parts of the center section, with the dihedral built right in? Is there a benefit to initial set-up doing it the way you described?
Greg
For me it is simpler and easier.
Let me ask you another question.........why are you building this particular airplane if you don't trust wires to hold the wings on? Wires not only hold the wing on ....... they hold the the whole plane together!
10-09-2011, 05:29 AM
#57
My Feedback: (50)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: DH 2
ORIGINAL: R/C Art
For me it is simpler and easier.
Let me ask you another question.........why are you building this particular airplane if you don't trust wires to hold the wings on? Wires not only hold the wing on ....... they hold the the whole plane together!
ORIGINAL: Eindecker_pilot
Hi Art,
I see your point. The damage would have been about 300% worse. Instead of 1 totalled wing panel, I'd have lost 3. During the Flags of the Great War incident, the Pup's wing wires acted as fuses, with their anchor's pulling out during the impact. That then allowed the other two panels to slide out from their dowel holes, preventing them from sustaining further damage. That saved 90% of the other 2 panels. If everything had been built super strong for flight loads, the crash damage would have been much worse. I recognize that it's the same design philosophy as what's used on trainers where the wing is held on by rubber bands, they are meant to absorb kinetic energy in the event of a crash. Although not the strongest for flight loads, it is plenty strong enough & has the benefit of ''give'' during a mishap.
Regarding your photos on the previous page, nice job, with the progress you've got, you're making this look easy as usual. Looks like you're definitely a fan of the wooden dowel method, as I was saying earlier it is proven effective & simple. Provided enough dowel length is used to allow for any wire stretch, it's hard to see this system failing unless the wires themselves break. I figure anybody using this method would use pairs of flying wires in each position anyway (like the 1/3 scale Pup), so there is a measure of redundancy there.
It is interesting that you're building the panels in 2 sections. I hadn't thought to do it that way. If understand your description correctly, you'll leave the inner section connected to the center section once it's built. Why not build those inner sections as permanent parts of the center section, with the dihedral built right in? Is there a benefit to initial set-up doing it the way you described?
Greg
ORIGINAL: R/C Art
Greg
I have a question for you......gather up your pocket protectors and put on your engineer thinking cap. Are you ready?
Consider your pole dancing incident with your third scale Pup..............
Ok, here's the question......how much more additional damage would there have been if you had used a different wing attach method?[:-]
Greg
I have a question for you......gather up your pocket protectors and put on your engineer thinking cap. Are you ready?
Consider your pole dancing incident with your third scale Pup.............
.Ok, here's the question......how much more additional damage would there have been if you had used a different wing attach method?[:-]
Hi Art,
I see your point. The damage would have been about 300% worse. Instead of 1 totalled wing panel, I'd have lost 3. During the Flags of the Great War incident, the Pup's wing wires acted as fuses, with their anchor's pulling out during the impact. That then allowed the other two panels to slide out from their dowel holes, preventing them from sustaining further damage. That saved 90% of the other 2 panels. If everything had been built super strong for flight loads, the crash damage would have been much worse. I recognize that it's the same design philosophy as what's used on trainers where the wing is held on by rubber bands, they are meant to absorb kinetic energy in the event of a crash. Although not the strongest for flight loads, it is plenty strong enough & has the benefit of ''give'' during a mishap.
Regarding your photos on the previous page, nice job, with the progress you've got, you're making this look easy as usual.
Looks like you're definitely a fan of the wooden dowel method, as I was saying earlier it is proven effective & simple. Provided enough dowel length is used to allow for any wire stretch, it's hard to see this system failing unless the wires themselves break. I figure anybody using this method would use pairs of flying wires in each position anyway (like the 1/3 scale Pup), so there is a measure of redundancy there. It is interesting that you're building the panels in 2 sections. I hadn't thought to do it that way. If understand your description correctly, you'll leave the inner section connected to the center section once it's built. Why not build those inner sections as permanent parts of the center section, with the dihedral built right in? Is there a benefit to initial set-up doing it the way you described?
Greg
For me it is simpler and easier.
Let me ask you another question.........why are you building this particular airplane if you don't trust wires to hold the wings on? Wires not only hold the wing on ....... they hold the the whole plane together!
Hello Arthur,
Greg and I had this discussion (briefly at HDP...Thanks DJ)........The key word here is "redundancy"
For me,I'm using it to protect a very expensive motor...unknown load factors and because some time the "best cable connections" fail.
Why are we building this particular plane that has all those cables?....Because we love the plane! There is no reason not to......wait for it.........."reengineer" it for a better piece of mind...
(that was for you Greg LOL)
HPA
Just came back to get more supplies, been on a camp and fly since last Thursday!
10-09-2011, 06:34 AM
#58
My Feedback: (10)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kingston,
ON, CANADA
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: DH 2
On my Aviatik, I'm using thick wall aluminum tubing in tubes to join two halves of my upper wing, with the tubes going out past the centre section struts.
The lower wings had dowel stubs in brass tubes, bridging two ply ribs and sticking out of the root rib about an inch or more. They are a friction fit and I'm replacing the dowel with brass tubing - I'd hate the dowel to get damp, (early morning Dawn Patrol), and then swell up and not be able to pull it out an the end of the day!
My current method with 4 separate panels makes up a 18" X 18" X 50" padded package that is easy to pack and less prone to damage. The rigging is working rigging - it is necessary for flight.
My rational for that approach over cantilevered wing has several reasons. First, cantilever wings are LONG - over 8ft in my case - and that is very inconvenient. Aside from transporting them, I'm going to bang them up getting in and out of the house.
WWI wings need to be fairly thin in order to look right and that means that cantilever wings are going to be heavier. The dihedral braces have to be pretty substantial, (heavy). A better alternative is the SIG blade system or the large tubes like the 3D guys use. But then you still have a bunch of struts to attach even if you leave the rigging off.
My 2 cents,
Martin
The lower wings had dowel stubs in brass tubes, bridging two ply ribs and sticking out of the root rib about an inch or more. They are a friction fit and I'm replacing the dowel with brass tubing - I'd hate the dowel to get damp, (early morning Dawn Patrol), and then swell up and not be able to pull it out an the end of the day!
My current method with 4 separate panels makes up a 18" X 18" X 50" padded package that is easy to pack and less prone to damage. The rigging is working rigging - it is necessary for flight.
My rational for that approach over cantilevered wing has several reasons. First, cantilever wings are LONG - over 8ft in my case - and that is very inconvenient. Aside from transporting them, I'm going to bang them up getting in and out of the house.
WWI wings need to be fairly thin in order to look right and that means that cantilever wings are going to be heavier. The dihedral braces have to be pretty substantial, (heavy). A better alternative is the SIG blade system or the large tubes like the 3D guys use. But then you still have a bunch of struts to attach even if you leave the rigging off.
My 2 cents,
Martin
10-09-2011, 02:25 PM
#59
RE: DH 2
ORIGINAL: R/C Art
For me it is simpler and easier.
Let me ask you another question.........why are you building this particular airplane if you don't trust wires to hold the wings on? Wires not only hold the wing on ....... they hold the the whole plane together!
ORIGINAL: Eindecker_pilot
Hi Art,
I see your point. The damage would have been about 300% worse. Instead of 1 totalled wing panel, I'd have lost 3. During the Flags of the Great War incident, the Pup's wing wires acted as fuses, with their anchor's pulling out during the impact. That then allowed the other two panels to slide out from their dowel holes, preventing them from sustaining further damage. That saved 90% of the other 2 panels. If everything had been built super strong for flight loads, the crash damage would have been much worse. I recognize that it's the same design philosophy as what's used on trainers where the wing is held on by rubber bands, they are meant to absorb kinetic energy in the event of a crash. Although not the strongest for flight loads, it is plenty strong enough & has the benefit of ''give'' during a mishap.
Regarding your photos on the previous page, nice job, with the progress you've got, you're making this look easy as usual. Looks like you're definitely a fan of the wooden dowel method, as I was saying earlier it is proven effective & simple. Provided enough dowel length is used to allow for any wire stretch, it's hard to see this system failing unless the wires themselves break. I figure anybody using this method would use pairs of flying wires in each position anyway (like the 1/3 scale Pup), so there is a measure of redundancy there.
It is interesting that you're building the panels in 2 sections. I hadn't thought to do it that way. If understand your description correctly, you'll leave the inner section connected to the center section once it's built. Why not build those inner sections as permanent parts of the center section, with the dihedral built right in? Is there a benefit to initial set-up doing it the way you described?
Greg
ORIGINAL: R/C Art
Greg
I have a question for you......gather up your pocket protectors and put on your engineer thinking cap. Are you ready?
Consider your pole dancing incident with your third scale Pup..............
Ok, here's the question......how much more additional damage would there have been if you had used a different wing attach method?[:-]
Greg
I have a question for you......gather up your pocket protectors and put on your engineer thinking cap. Are you ready?
Consider your pole dancing incident with your third scale Pup.............
.Ok, here's the question......how much more additional damage would there have been if you had used a different wing attach method?[:-]
Hi Art,
I see your point. The damage would have been about 300% worse. Instead of 1 totalled wing panel, I'd have lost 3. During the Flags of the Great War incident, the Pup's wing wires acted as fuses, with their anchor's pulling out during the impact. That then allowed the other two panels to slide out from their dowel holes, preventing them from sustaining further damage. That saved 90% of the other 2 panels. If everything had been built super strong for flight loads, the crash damage would have been much worse. I recognize that it's the same design philosophy as what's used on trainers where the wing is held on by rubber bands, they are meant to absorb kinetic energy in the event of a crash. Although not the strongest for flight loads, it is plenty strong enough & has the benefit of ''give'' during a mishap.
Regarding your photos on the previous page, nice job, with the progress you've got, you're making this look easy as usual.
Looks like you're definitely a fan of the wooden dowel method, as I was saying earlier it is proven effective & simple. Provided enough dowel length is used to allow for any wire stretch, it's hard to see this system failing unless the wires themselves break. I figure anybody using this method would use pairs of flying wires in each position anyway (like the 1/3 scale Pup), so there is a measure of redundancy there. It is interesting that you're building the panels in 2 sections. I hadn't thought to do it that way. If understand your description correctly, you'll leave the inner section connected to the center section once it's built. Why not build those inner sections as permanent parts of the center section, with the dihedral built right in? Is there a benefit to initial set-up doing it the way you described?
Greg
For me it is simpler and easier.
Let me ask you another question.........why are you building this particular airplane if you don't trust wires to hold the wings on? Wires not only hold the wing on ....... they hold the the whole plane together!
No matter what method is used, the key thing is to double up on the flying wires (for redundancy) & account for cable stretch. The instances where Pup's have had wing panels come out due to cable stretch are easily addressed simply by providing extra dowel length on the lower wing panels. The Pup has very short dowels on the lower panels of the Balsa USA design. That in and of itself shouldn't give the dowel method a bad name since it is easy to add enough extra engagement length to prevent that from happening.
10-09-2011, 05:28 PM
#60
RE: DH 2
ORIGINAL: Eindecker_pilot
Just to be clear, I haven't actually picked a method yet. I do trust wires. What makes me curious is that there are such varying methods of joining wing panels though; it begs the question: when does one method have a critical advantage over another? I sort of view the dowel method as a baseline & if much higher flight loads are expected, or the airplane itself lacks flying wires (generally speaking, not specific to DH2), the other plug-in designs tend to come into play. It is interesting to analyze the pros & cons of each concept. I will probably build mine with just one panel section instead of two, but since I haven't actually started building anything yet, who knows.
No matter what method is used, the key thing is to double up on the flying wires & account for cable stretch. The incidences where Pup's have had wing panels come out due to cable stretch are easily addressed simply by providing extra dowel length on the lower wing panels. The Pup has very short dowels on the lower panels of the Balsa USA design. That in and of itself shouldn't give the dowel method a bad name since it is easy to add enough extra engagement length to prevent that from happening.
ORIGINAL: R/C Art
For me it is simpler and easier.
Let me ask you another question.........why are you building this particular airplane if you don't trust wires to hold the wings on? Wires not only hold the wing on ....... they hold the the whole plane together!
ORIGINAL: Eindecker_pilot
Hi Art,
I see your point. The damage would have been about 300% worse. Instead of 1 totalled wing panel, I'd have lost 3. During the Flags of the Great War incident, the Pup's wing wires acted as fuses, with their anchor's pulling out during the impact. That then allowed the other two panels to slide out from their dowel holes, preventing them from sustaining further damage. That saved 90% of the other 2 panels. If everything had been built super strong for flight loads, the crash damage would have been much worse. I recognize that it's the same design philosophy as what's used on trainers where the wing is held on by rubber bands, they are meant to absorb kinetic energy in the event of a crash. Although not the strongest for flight loads, it is plenty strong enough & has the benefit of ''give'' during a mishap.
Regarding your photos on the previous page, nice job, with the progress you've got, you're making this look easy as usual. Looks like you're definitely a fan of the wooden dowel method, as I was saying earlier it is proven effective & simple. Provided enough dowel length is used to allow for any wire stretch, it's hard to see this system failing unless the wires themselves break. I figure anybody using this method would use pairs of flying wires in each position anyway (like the 1/3 scale Pup), so there is a measure of redundancy there.
It is interesting that you're building the panels in 2 sections. I hadn't thought to do it that way. If understand your description correctly, you'll leave the inner section connected to the center section once it's built. Why not build those inner sections as permanent parts of the center section, with the dihedral built right in? Is there a benefit to initial set-up doing it the way you described?
Greg
ORIGINAL: R/C Art
Greg
I have a question for you......gather up your pocket protectors and put on your engineer thinking cap. Are you ready?
Consider your pole dancing incident with your third scale Pup..............
Ok, here's the question......how much more additional damage would there have been if you had used a different wing attach method?[:-]
Greg
I have a question for you......gather up your pocket protectors and put on your engineer thinking cap. Are you ready?
Consider your pole dancing incident with your third scale Pup.............
.Ok, here's the question......how much more additional damage would there have been if you had used a different wing attach method?[:-]
Hi Art,
I see your point. The damage would have been about 300% worse. Instead of 1 totalled wing panel, I'd have lost 3. During the Flags of the Great War incident, the Pup's wing wires acted as fuses, with their anchor's pulling out during the impact. That then allowed the other two panels to slide out from their dowel holes, preventing them from sustaining further damage. That saved 90% of the other 2 panels. If everything had been built super strong for flight loads, the crash damage would have been much worse. I recognize that it's the same design philosophy as what's used on trainers where the wing is held on by rubber bands, they are meant to absorb kinetic energy in the event of a crash. Although not the strongest for flight loads, it is plenty strong enough & has the benefit of ''give'' during a mishap.
Regarding your photos on the previous page, nice job, with the progress you've got, you're making this look easy as usual.
Looks like you're definitely a fan of the wooden dowel method, as I was saying earlier it is proven effective & simple. Provided enough dowel length is used to allow for any wire stretch, it's hard to see this system failing unless the wires themselves break. I figure anybody using this method would use pairs of flying wires in each position anyway (like the 1/3 scale Pup), so there is a measure of redundancy there. It is interesting that you're building the panels in 2 sections. I hadn't thought to do it that way. If understand your description correctly, you'll leave the inner section connected to the center section once it's built. Why not build those inner sections as permanent parts of the center section, with the dihedral built right in? Is there a benefit to initial set-up doing it the way you described?
Greg
For me it is simpler and easier.
Let me ask you another question.........why are you building this particular airplane if you don't trust wires to hold the wings on? Wires not only hold the wing on ....... they hold the the whole plane together!
No matter what method is used, the key thing is to double up on the flying wires & account for cable stretch. The incidences where Pup's have had wing panels come out due to cable stretch are easily addressed simply by providing extra dowel length on the lower wing panels. The Pup has very short dowels on the lower panels of the Balsa USA design. That in and of itself shouldn't give the dowel method a bad name since it is easy to add enough extra engagement length to prevent that from happening.
It seems to me that all the methods of wing joining/attaching which have been discussed are valid. I think all will handle the flight loads that we will be imposing on the models. It all boils down to which method each of us prefer and which method meets our needs as to storage, transportation and field assembly.
It goes without saying, that any method improperly applied and/or maintained, at some point in time will fail.
These are not the first models any of us have built, so I don't see shoddy workmanship as an issue.......so fellas, you pays your money and you takes your choices.
SO BOYS, CUT SOME WOOD AND START GLUING!
10-10-2011, 07:22 AM
#62
My Feedback: (50)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: DH 2
ORIGINAL: LesUyeda
''SO BOYS, CUT SOME WOOD AND START GLUING! ''
Yeah, but then you are COMMITTED:-)))))))))))))))
Les
''SO BOYS, CUT SOME WOOD AND START GLUING! ''
Yeah, but then you are COMMITTED:-)))))))))))))))
Les
................ shouldn't we all be committed anyway?.................................[X(][X(]
10-10-2011, 06:57 PM
#64
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northfield Center, OH
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
RE: DH 2
I've used dowels and/or tubes for the wings on several planes, some to join outer wing panels, and others to attach to the fuselage or center section. I always screw in a sheet metal screw (or similar) when assembling the plane to anchor them together. Otherwise, the dowels can work their way out slightly when the flying wires stretch. On the Gotha's lower wings I actually use long deck screws that go in through the bottoms of the nacelles to anchor the dowels in place.
On mine I'm going to have the wings plug in at the fuselage center sections, and have the front ends of the booms drop into slots in the trailing edges, where they will be anchored by through bolts.
As far as all the rigging and control wires go, after the Gotha this one doesn't faze me much!!
Jim
On mine I'm going to have the wings plug in at the fuselage center sections, and have the front ends of the booms drop into slots in the trailing edges, where they will be anchored by through bolts.
As far as all the rigging and control wires go, after the Gotha this one doesn't faze me much!!
Jim
10-12-2011, 09:32 AM
#66
My Feedback: (50)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: DH 2
Very nice ART WORK.....................get it??.................ART is your name and I am complimenting you on your.............never mind
I would like to know what you are thinking about using for a axle and wheels...........any thoughts?
The reason I ask is I was wondering if anyone is going to use tubing instead of spring steel for the axles.......I want to use tubing on the 1/2 scale DH2 and other 1/3 scales Need to know pros/cons...
Also are the DH2 wheels fit the Dubro size or do they need to be bigger ?
HPA
I would like to know what you are thinking about using for a axle and wheels...........any thoughts?
The reason I ask is I was wondering if anyone is going to use tubing instead of spring steel for the axles.......I want to use tubing on the 1/2 scale DH2 and other 1/3 scales Need to know pros/cons...
Also are the DH2 wheels fit the Dubro size or do they need to be bigger ?
HPA
10-12-2011, 10:17 AM
#67
RE: DH 2
I use tubing a lot Paul. I have it for the axles on a 1/4 N28 (2piece swing axles) It weighs about 14 lb or so and they hold up well. I have 3/8" on the 1/3 scale N28 (38 1/2 lb dry) and so far so good. The id will accept 1/4 od tube or rod if there's a problem. I used it on a 1/4 SE 5a as a one piece axle and bent it on a bad landing, the Se is sort of portly at 23 1/2 lb and I wasnt too surprised when it bent, it was a crappy landing, no really it was.
Doc
Doc
10-12-2011, 10:42 AM
#68
My Feedback: (50)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: DH 2
ORIGINAL: geezeraviation
I use tubing a lot Paul. I have it for the axles on a 1/4 N28 (2piece swing axles) It weighs about 14 lb or so and they hold up well. I have 3/8'' on the 1/3 scale N28 (38 1/2 lb dry) and so far so good. The id will accept 1/4 od tube or rod if there's a problem. I used it on a 1/4 SE 5a as a one piece axle and bent it on a bad landing, the Se is sort of portly at 23 1/2 lb and I wasnt too surprised when it bent, it was a crappy landing, no really it was.
Doc
I use tubing a lot Paul. I have it for the axles on a 1/4 N28 (2piece swing axles) It weighs about 14 lb or so and they hold up well. I have 3/8'' on the 1/3 scale N28 (38 1/2 lb dry) and so far so good. The id will accept 1/4 od tube or rod if there's a problem. I used it on a 1/4 SE 5a as a one piece axle and bent it on a bad landing, the Se is sort of portly at 23 1/2 lb and I wasnt too surprised when it bent, it was a crappy landing, no really it was.
Doc
HPA
10-12-2011, 11:18 AM
#69
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northfield Center, OH
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
RE: DH 2
ORIGINAL: Horsepoweraviation
Very nice ART WORK.....................get it??.................ART is your name and I am complimenting you on your.............never mind
I would like to know what you are thinking about using for a axle and wheels...........any thoughts?
The reason I ask is I was wondering if anyone is going to use tubing instead of spring steel for the axles.......I want to use tubing on the 1/2 scale DH2 and other 1/3 scales Need to know pros/cons...
Also are the DH2 wheels fit the Dubro size or do they need to be bigger ?
HPA
Very nice ART WORK.....................get it??.................ART is your name and I am complimenting you on your.............never mind
I would like to know what you are thinking about using for a axle and wheels...........any thoughts?
The reason I ask is I was wondering if anyone is going to use tubing instead of spring steel for the axles.......I want to use tubing on the 1/2 scale DH2 and other 1/3 scales Need to know pros/cons...
Also are the DH2 wheels fit the Dubro size or do they need to be bigger ?
HPA
I tried some steel tubing for the axle on my 1/3 N-28 and they bent. I ended up using solid tool steel rod and it works great...it's just a little heavy. The tubing I tried was probably too thin walled and maybe the wrong alloy. My axle is full-floating, meaning they don't pivot in the center. It works really well.
I think tubing would work on your half-scale if you get the right stuff.
For the DH-2 I'm going to use the same thing: solid rod axle and Dubro wheels. They might not be exact scale but they look pretty good if you cover the rims with fabric.
Jim
10-12-2011, 12:19 PM
#70
RE: DH 2
ORIGINAL: Horsepoweraviation
Very nice ART WORK.....................get it??.................ART is your name and I am complimenting you on your.............never mind
I would like to know what you are thinking about using for a axle and wheels...........any thoughts?
The reason I ask is I was wondering if anyone is going to use tubing instead of spring steel for the axles.......I want to use tubing on the 1/2 scale DH2 and other 1/3 scales Need to know pros/cons...
Also are the DH2 wheels fit the Dubro size or do they need to be bigger ?
HPA
Very nice ART WORK.....................get it??.................ART is your name and I am complimenting you on your.............never mind
I would like to know what you are thinking about using for a axle and wheels...........any thoughts?
The reason I ask is I was wondering if anyone is going to use tubing instead of spring steel for the axles.......I want to use tubing on the 1/2 scale DH2 and other 1/3 scales Need to know pros/cons...
Also are the DH2 wheels fit the Dubro size or do they need to be bigger ?
HPA
I will use quarter inch music wire axle and probably the old BUSA baby buggy wheels (I still have a couple pairs left)......if they look bad or buckle on me, then I will use Dubro wheels.
Tubing for axles? Check with the full scale (7/8 scale) Nieuport guys and use what they are using, but a little smaller. If it works for full scale aviation, then it should work for models......we just have to find the proper material and wall thickness.
10-12-2011, 12:35 PM
#71
RE: DH 2
Paul
It's 4130 Chromoly (steel). Very brazeable or silver solder (hard hi temp stuff not stay brite). I get it from Aircraft Spruce. Its available in many wall thicknesses. Go to www.aircraftspruce.com/ select metals and plastics. Choose steel from the menue and go to 4130 round tube, scroll down to near the bottom where it says click here for parts similar to these, there's two pages one for <1" and one for >1" Lots to choose from.
On the 1/3 N28 I used 3/8"od X .058 wall. A 1/4 rod or tube could be epoxied in the area where the bungees are if bending becomes a problem. I've only flown it once and greased the landing so I didnt test it much, it was an accident I normally land much bouncier.
It's 4130 Chromoly (steel). Very brazeable or silver solder (hard hi temp stuff not stay brite). I get it from Aircraft Spruce. Its available in many wall thicknesses. Go to www.aircraftspruce.com/ select metals and plastics. Choose steel from the menue and go to 4130 round tube, scroll down to near the bottom where it says click here for parts similar to these, there's two pages one for <1" and one for >1" Lots to choose from.
On the 1/3 N28 I used 3/8"od X .058 wall. A 1/4 rod or tube could be epoxied in the area where the bungees are if bending becomes a problem. I've only flown it once and greased the landing so I didnt test it much, it was an accident I normally land much bouncier.
10-12-2011, 05:02 PM
#73
RE: DH 2
ORIGINAL: Horsepoweraviation
Very nice ART WORK.....................get it??.................ART is your name and I am complimenting you on your.............never mind
I would like to know what you are thinking about using for a axle and wheels...........any thoughts?
The reason I ask is I was wondering if anyone is going to use tubing instead of spring steel for the axles.......I want to use tubing on the 1/2 scale DH2 and other 1/3 scales Need to know pros/cons...
Also are the DH2 wheels fit the Dubro size or do they need to be bigger ?
HPA
Very nice ART WORK.....................get it??.................ART is your name and I am complimenting you on your.............never mind
I would like to know what you are thinking about using for a axle and wheels...........any thoughts?
The reason I ask is I was wondering if anyone is going to use tubing instead of spring steel for the axles.......I want to use tubing on the 1/2 scale DH2 and other 1/3 scales Need to know pros/cons...
Also are the DH2 wheels fit the Dubro size or do they need to be bigger ?
HPA
Food for thought.... If using tube, you might want to put a hinge in the middle, like how David Gibson did his 1/3 scale Sopwith Triplane landing gear. While I think that gear was solid steel rod, my point is that a hinge in the middle of the axle would facilitate a tube design nicely. Here's a photo of the mechanism he had:
10-12-2011, 05:04 PM
#74
RE: DH 2
My approach to wing tips:
Basic shape is lite ply. Outline this with (in this case 1/8") balsa, top and bottom.......then add a trailing edge triangular shaped piece of balsa.
The tip is then nicely rounded during the finish sanding stage.
Basic shape is lite ply. Outline this with (in this case 1/8") balsa, top and bottom.......then add a trailing edge triangular shaped piece of balsa.
The tip is then nicely rounded during the finish sanding stage.
10-12-2011, 08:35 PM
#75
Senior Member
My Feedback: (4)
RE: DH 2
ORIGINAL: John Cole
Art,
Very exciting project!!
If you guys are interested in adding a small detail to youe DH's that won't take much $$ or time: I had Vikie @ GetStencils.com make up the Airco strut decal. She made them as a rub on type of decal, are proportined correctly, and use metalic ink (copper and gold) per the originals.
I would post an image but RCU is broke I think...
John
Art,
Very exciting project!!
If you guys are interested in adding a small detail to youe DH's that won't take much $$ or time: I had Vikie @ GetStencils.com make up the Airco strut decal. She made them as a rub on type of decal, are proportined correctly, and use metalic ink (copper and gold) per the originals.
I would post an image but RCU is broke I think...
John
