Author Topic: Wild Bill's Square one 1/2A design (Read 5945 times)

John Miller · « **on:** June 15, 2009, 03:20:31 PM »

Wild Bill designed this as a beginners 1/2a design. It uses one sheet of balsa, and is easy to build. Might be a treat for helping beginners to join in the hobby.

Robert McHam · « **Reply #1 on:** June 15, 2009, 03:47:35 PM »

Thanks John! It really does look more attractive than I had imagined and when compared to the Ambush, you can see the design similarities.

Robert

George · « **Reply #2 on:** June 16, 2009, 09:00:32 AM »

Neat little plane. If you build one, remember to use "C" grain. It needs to stay flat.

George

Robert McHam · « **Reply #3 on:** June 16, 2009, 09:46:12 AM »

Not marked on plan that I have found but I am guessing the sheet is 1/8" sheet?

Robert

John Miller · « **Reply #4 on:** June 16, 2009, 11:28:32 AM »

Quote from: Robert McHam on June 16, 2009, 09:46:12 AM

Not marked on plan that I have found but I am guessing the sheet is 1/8" sheet?

Robert

Yes, 1/8" x 3" x 36" "c" grain balsa, and a little bit of 1/8" ply for the motor mount and leadout support.

Ward Van Duzer · « **Reply #5 on:** June 17, 2009, 08:49:50 AM »

Good Grief!

That is the basis of at least two Ward-O/Hampshire designed Junkyard contests!

W.

Robert McHam · « **Reply #6 on:** June 17, 2009, 11:43:09 AM »

Yes, it is very nice and simple. Very well designed and laid out.

OK then, who will be the first one to build one? I think I should give it a shot.

I have been having some problems reading the plan and some things aren't perfectly clear. The one thing that would make this easier for a lot of people is to have a step by step detailing the build to make things more clear on some things.
Some can't read a plan! It is hard for me to imagine but it's true. They really need pictures or drawings to get them through something even this simple.

I have a clear picture of this thing now... Now to bring it to life!

Robert

John Miller · « **Reply #7 on:** June 17, 2009, 02:42:26 PM »

OK, let's try this. A large PNG pic.

John Castle · « **Reply #8 on:** June 17, 2009, 03:25:02 PM »

I'm thinking I might build this one for the fun of it. I do have a question about the plan that you folks may be able to help with. On the upper right hand side there is a diagram labeled "first cut of basic 3"x36" sheet", I see that one wing is 11 3/16" and the other wing is 11 13/16". I just don't understand what the 13/16" and the 1 5/8" are reffering to. Any insight?

John Miller · « **Reply #9 on:** June 17, 2009, 04:32:13 PM »

The first cut is for the wing, 24" long. The other dimensions, on the one and only wing, are for the center of the wing, and for cutting the shoulder insets for the engine mounting.

The wing has some assymetry, so the centerline is not located at the middle, or 12 inch mark. The 13/16" is the offset to one side of the wing centerline, 1 5/8" is the total width of the cut.

The rest of the parts, located on the upper left hand side of the plans, are cut from the remaining piece of balsa, after the wing cut has been made.

Robert McHam · « **Reply #10 on:** June 17, 2009, 05:12:56 PM »

There is something wrong with me or else I am reading the plan wrong. No camera for now so I'll try to find a way to address the anomalies.

I have cut out all the parts and the parts marked nose jut out about 3/8" too far. Or so I am thinking.
If you look close at the side view this would appear normal for there is a vertical line about 3/8" back.
My thinking is that the forward part of the nose should be flush with the forward point on the fuse. However, the forward part of the Fuselage should come to the forward part of the wing inset which is 3/8" back from the LE. This would allow the 1/8" firewall to be flush with all fuse, side, nose and wing for best rigidity.

Anyone come up with this yet?

Robert

Robert McHam · « **Reply #11 on:** June 17, 2009, 05:30:05 PM »

Here is what I was referring to in the previous post.

Robert

John Miller · « **Reply #12 on:** June 17, 2009, 05:35:50 PM »

Quote from: Robert McHam on June 17, 2009, 05:30:05 PM

Here is what I was referring to in the previous post.

Robert

Robert, The sides are long enough on the outsides of the mount box. Look at the top view with the triangular parts. You'll see that the sides need to overhang the long side of the triangle, and must be sanded flat to the straight 90 degree side so the parts will fit flush to the stab parts. You will also need to sand the front, where the motor mounts flush. This will use up the seemingly excess wood.

Robert McHam · « **Reply #13 on:** June 17, 2009, 06:20:35 PM »

John, everything you say is true and I have no trouble with the sides matching the triangular nose part.
I guess I am not clear on the problem.

I can fix it!

Robert

John Castle · « **Reply #14 on:** June 17, 2009, 08:44:04 PM »

Ok here is what I have so far. For the most part things went together well. If it was me I would have made the center keels about 1/2" longer so they would reach all the way to the firewall and the side pieces about 1/2" shorter so I did not have to sand off so much extra. All in all a very enjoyably way to spend a few hours and a $2.00 piece of balsa wood.

John

Robert McHam · « **Reply #15 on:** June 17, 2009, 10:49:43 PM »

John! Looks good!
You understand what I was trying to say in my other post.
I took a different approach and removed all the sides and nose pieces (pain once glued) and made the cutout for the noes pieces match and saved myself all that sanding and in addition this lets the face for the ply mount be the same size. It is drying now and I will cut my ply next. That makes you ahead of me by a little bit.

I still stand by my original comment that the the plan has a slight error. I don't think that anyone was intended to sand all that wood back a half an inch. Can't argue that it makes it work though!

Man, I wish I had a camera to take pictures!

Robert

John Miller · « **Reply #16 on:** June 18, 2009, 07:15:44 AM »

Robert, perhaps the legnth is in excess so that there's room for error on the behaf of the beginners.

I must say, the thing looks kinda neat. I hope to hear a flying report from the weekend.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #17 on:** June 18, 2009, 07:22:57 AM »

Be nice to have a set of plans that showed up better. Any chance of getting a set of plans? DOC Holliday

John Miller · « **Reply #18 on:** June 18, 2009, 07:39:57 AM »

I'll be happy to plot up a set of plans at no cost except for shipping. Folded in a large flat envelope would be about a dollar for postage and the envelope.

PayPal to cadclassics@cadclassics.net

Bill Adair · « **Reply #19 on:** June 19, 2009, 11:52:23 AM »

John,

What is the piece in the lower right hand corner of the plan?

Thought it might be the lead out guide, but it appears to have 14 holes drilled through, 8 on top, and 6 on the bottom? I can't make out enough detail to see the actual shape of the part.

Bill

Robert McHam · « **Reply #20 on:** June 19, 2009, 12:41:03 PM »

I haven't deciphered it yet myself but this view may help.

Robert

I think I get it hold tight for updated pic!

John Castle · « **Reply #21 on:** June 19, 2009, 12:50:52 PM »

That is the firewall, lead out guide and the bellcrank support all cut from one piece of 1 5/8" x 2" x 1/8" plywood. I ended up just using some scraps that I had lying around and cut them to fit.

Mine should be ready to paint this weekend. I think I will use dope mixed with microballoons as a fill coat and then the old standby rustoleum for color. KISS is my motto for this project.

John

Robert McHam · « **Reply #22 on:** June 19, 2009, 12:59:41 PM »

Quote from: John Castle on June 19, 2009, 12:50:52 PM

That is the firewall, lead out guide and the bellcrank support all cut from one piece of 1 5/8" x 2" x 1/8" plywood. I ended up just using some scraps that I had lying around and cut them to fit.

Mine should be ready to paint this weekend. I think I will use dope mixed with microballoons as a fill coat and then the old standby rustoleum for color. KISS is my motto for this project.

John

John, you hit it square.

Maybe the these pics will help.
First is the parts separations highlighted in red.
Second is the line guide.
third is the firewall.
fourth is the bell crank mount.
Since the bell crank mount is a little hard to see I have made another pic that outlines the part in red.

Robert

Bill Adair · « **Reply #23 on:** June 19, 2009, 01:16:07 PM »

Thanks guys.

I was really confused by the grain lines in the ply.

Afraid my eyes ain't what they used to be, and my brain isn't far behind!

John,

Looking forward to the flight report.

One of the fellows in my club, teamed up with the late Frank Macy, and designed a neat sheet wing sport plane. They named it the "Firebaby II".

Many of them have been built by other club members, but I've yet to see one fly. It's an ultra simple build, and eliminates cutting the wing and stab slots. I'm going to see if they will put it on our club web site (being updated) to share with others.

Bill

Robert McHam · « **Reply #24 on:** June 19, 2009, 02:39:12 PM »

Bill, That sounds great. Keep us posted.
could this be the plane?

Robert

Bill Adair · « **Reply #25 on:** June 19, 2009, 02:59:55 PM »

Robert,

Looks very similar, but that airplane appears to use Firebaby parts, including the wing with dihedral.

Bill

Robert McHam · « **Reply #26 on:** June 19, 2009, 08:00:47 PM »

I think I may have misinterpreted the ply parts.

Not that it really matters in the long run but I think this is how the layout was intended and as drawn.

I apologize, really I do but I had a bear of a mechanical drawing teacher who just... Well lets just say that every now and again I will get really picky (won't use that other word) about some details.

Robert

Bill Adair · « **Reply #27 on:** June 20, 2009, 01:32:58 AM »

Robert,

No problem, it had me puzzled, until you fellows figured it out.

On second thought, that airplane that Frank Macy is holding could be the Firebaby II, but it sure looks like that wing has dihedral. Hard to tell with that picture, because it's a top view of the airplane.

I've heard that the Firebaby II is a good performer, but haven't been able to catch any of the owners at the field to see for myself.

Bill

Robert McHam · « **Reply #28 on:** June 20, 2009, 06:10:39 AM »

Bill, I knew about one they called the Firebaby II on the American Junior Classics site but is merely a replica of the original Firebaby. See here: http://www.americanjuniorclassics.com/ajstore/firebaby2.html
It uses the sheet wings with the under camber and dihedral and also the aluminum tail fin, not to be confused with with the picture above which does sort of look like it does have dihedral.
The one in my earlier post on the other hand, looks like it has a balsa fin and it also seems to missing the wing joiner at the base of the wing ala Firebaby.

I wish it were a better picture. I wish we could ask Mr. Macy. He is already missed...

Robert

John Miller · « **Reply #29 on:** June 20, 2009, 07:36:14 AM »

Quote from: Robert McHam on June 19, 2009, 08:00:47 PM

I think I may have misinterpreted the ply parts.

Not that it really matters in the long run but I think this is how the layout was intended and as drawn.

I apologize, really I do but I had a bear of a mechanical drawing teacher who just... Well lets just say that every now and again I will get really picky (won't use that other word) about some details.

Robert

Yeah, I probably should not have used the grain patterrn on that piece as it made it hard to understand. At the time, it seemed everyone wanted grain on the drawings. I just felt it muddied up the drawing. Currently, I don't add grain to my drawings for this very reason.

john e. holliday · « **Reply #30 on:** June 20, 2009, 08:13:19 AM »

Good old Drafting I & II, the teachers I had looked at some of the plans I had for models and wondered about the grain patterns on them. As far as plywood the grain pattern should be left off. The balsa parts were okay for grain pattern to them.

Now does anybody do drafting by hand anymore or is it all on computor? DOC Holliday

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #31 on:** June 20, 2009, 02:26:40 PM »

Are you looking for someone to do hand drafting? I converted to Autocad long ago in my engineering career but never got over resenting it. I love board drafting.

John Miller · « **Reply #32 on:** June 20, 2009, 06:36:46 PM »

Board drafting is still done. There are a few guys I know who really create works of art.

I spent more than a few years working as a draftsman on the board for a company making material handleing equipment. I love drawing on the board, but, The big drawback in our hobby today, when it comes to hand drafting, is the drawing still has to be digitized some way, then converted to a CNC compatible file, so we can have the quality, and accuracy of our laser cut parts.

A skilled Cad operator can produce a very good set of plans, often more accuratly, and often faster than a hand drafter, and it is already in a CNC compatible format. It saves a bundle of money. Have you everr priced the rate to convert a hand drawing into Cad?

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #33 on:** June 20, 2009, 10:08:25 PM »

No argument from me, CAD wins hands down, in economy, accuracy, versatility, easily revisable, etc., etc., etc....I use Turbocad to draw my model plans, parts layout, etc.

I still love board drafting. Nothing but an emotional attachment to the feel of pencil on paper, just seems to lend itself to more creativity. Just a Luddite at heart I guess.

John Castle · « **Reply #34 on:** June 28, 2009, 03:28:52 PM »

I finally finished the Square One. It only took a very small amount of weight in the tail to balance it and that is with a heavy Golden Bee on the front. I went ahead and put a washers worth of offset on the motor as well. There was no motor or rudder offset on the plans and I figured it might need something. Everything else is to the plans. Hopefully I will get a chance to fly it soon as both of my fields are closed at the moment.

John

minnesotamodeler · « **Reply #35 on:** June 28, 2009, 03:49:53 PM »

looks like a mean little thing...what does it weigh?

I'd check that pushrod splice after every flight; I'm thinking vibration from the engine runs might loosen the crimps. I'm assuming that's alum. tubing.

Nice looking job, true to the original. Tell us how it flies!

Bill Adair · « **Reply #36 on:** June 28, 2009, 03:50:31 PM »

John,

That looks really nice, but I think you need more elevator throw!

Looking forward to the flight report.

Bill

john e. holliday · « **Reply #37 on:** June 29, 2009, 04:32:25 PM »

John C. that looks great. Waiting for the plans and building weather. DOC Holliday

John Miller · « **Reply #38 on:** June 29, 2009, 06:16:17 PM »

I just plotted out your plans Doc. They'll be in the mail tomorrow.

John Castle · « **Reply #39 on:** July 10, 2009, 11:00:28 AM »

Flight report:
I flew the Square One yesterday with good results. I used 35' steel lines. It picked up speed and tracked in level flight very well. It was very light on the lines but not twitchy at all. Considering all of the elevator travel I had I expected it to be a little more maneuverable. I also expected it to be a little faster than it was though to be fair I think my old Golden Bee is a little tired and not producing its full potential. I tried some loops but they were anemic so I did not try outside loops or inverted flight. My summary would be that this plane makes a very good trainer and would benefit from shorter lines or a gutsier engine. My son flew it (he is fearless and crashes lots of planes) and bounced it a few times on the grass and it suffered no damage at all.

Thanks,
John

john e. holliday · « **Reply #40 on:** July 11, 2009, 08:52:22 AM »

Have the plans and they look great. Anyone that can't build one of these needs to go back to school. I think my grandson could build it with very little help. We will see. Thanks John M., DOC Holliday