stunthanger.com
Classic Designs => Classic Planes => Topic started by: jjorgensen on May 15, 2009, 02:55:28 PM
-
Now it's about done, all it needs is some ink work, touch up and clear.
-
Sweeeeeeet! Way to go! H^^ CLP** BW@ HH%% ~>
-
Jack and Jim will be proud of your ME-262. You have a beautiful airplane! Good luck with it.
-
Looks Great Jim!!! Be sure to give us a flight report H^^
-
thats looking stunning.
-
I am very glad to see that you are about finished! it really looks great. Trim it out real good and have a LOT of FUN with it!
Maybe I can finally get started on mine in a month or two.
Mongo
-
Unfortunately, I didn't get much of a chance to trim it out. It looked great in the air and did great insides loops and squares. It flew outboard wing up inverted which I was going to have to adjust with a tab of some sort but something failed on the the third flight and it is no more. I think the bellcrank pulled out through the fusalage side. I'll know better and reinforce the fusalage at that point next time. That is the problem with having to mount the bellcrank behind the spar, you don't have the inherent strength associated with the spar. I will also mount the gear differently. I think mounting the gear on the spar allows the spar to flex and perhaps break loose from the ribs. Other than that, I'm going to build another.
-
Ouch!
sorry to hear about that,,
It really bites to loose a new bird so early, been there done that
-
I'm also sorry to hear of the loss of this nice looking aircraft. Hope you resolve the problem on the sedcond go round. Do you have any photos of the area that failed ?
-
That sucks. Just yesterday, my grandfather's Big Job went in due to a leadout break AT the bellcrank. Only the wing can be salvaged from that wreck, and he's thinking of building another one.
Hope you build another Messerschmitt
-
That's just a shame. Sorry to hear it.
-
Sorry to hear about the demise. Seems every single replica of Jacks planes, I have seen, crash the first time around.. Something is missing in the plans or instructions. It seemed to me a lot was assumed one understood all there was to know. The articles are bare of explanations., But they are fun to build. y1 H^^ D>K
Hey Ty, I still have my Spitfire. Elwyn has the Staggerwing. DOC Holliday
-
Seems every single replica of Jacks planes, I have seen, crash the first time around.. Something is missing in the plans or instructions. It seemed to me a lot was assumed one understood all there was to know. The articles are bare of explanations., But they are fun to build.
[/quote]
Seems a trifle unkind ?
Maybe he assumes the builder will've done a dozen or so planes beforehand, and enjoyes a bit of creative interpretation ! ? etc .
Somwe of the drawings arnt deadly accurate to the aeroplane , however , or V c Vis.
So study of the pictures ( theres generally a few of the bare airframe ) under an eyeglass / magnifier can reveal a few details , or descrepancies
( we call this " thats how I would have done that at the time , if Id thought of it !
But now ive done it I can see how it shouldve been done ! )
Most of his planes are one off's not a continuing series of variations or developments of one type. But
Structural methods are generally similar through his designs ( and tend to evolve ,in detail,or details ,So
Studiying others of his similar CONCEPTS tends to show the train of design developement as the years
progressed.
Particularly through the swept wing types.His Twin -Skyrocket's definately a rocket too . . .
Trying a few combinations others wert game to try or popularise till decades later.
GAME is the style , normally of the build it in a week , for a keen teenager, if were not too fussy about the paint
Only makes it take longer till it takes to the air .ONe of his Quotes was " Normally test flown before painting "
Probly thinking of the next one (or six ? ) at that stage ! Quotes =
Whats the best Ferrari youve built ? - a certain individual = " The NEXT one "
-
Out of curisioty what engine was in the original and what engine did you have in this one. Could it be that todays engines just pull a bit more ?
-
That is a possibility. The original had a .35. I put an FP-40 in mine and it did fly with plenty of authority. I don't think it was too much engine though. I just didn't beef up the fuselage side enough, especially since you need to cut out for the leadouts. Kind of like the perforations in a roll of paper towels. A definite weak point.
-
Matthew, honestly, have you ever really , truly, studied the photos in the 1960's era Model Airplane News under a magnifying glass??? What did you see besides a myriad of dots...? D>K
The old eyeglass with about (pressumably ) 4X magnification. Main thing is it brings the pictures to life,,
More as if your looking at the object photograped than a picture. Good for the old pommy racing motorcycles too.
Onnce measued the exhaust stubs on a Griffon ( 35 3/4 in ( as is spinner dia . ! ) and drew a scale drawing for a griffon sea fury.
late at night when the eathers are silent . Unfortunately forgot id done it, and repeated the exercise some weeks later .
One Cowling line was the thickness of the ink line dierant. the rest identical, on laying the tracings over ea. other.
Took this to prove one can scle from photos , if enlarged and telescopic effect corrected ,after deriving vanising points from
parrallel edges.Total pain though.Takes some months of studying the pictures beforehand to analise the structure and method of constuction
underneath.
Deriving airfoils and dimensions from shots of uncovered stuctures in photos is childs play in comparison. You blow up the picture about 400 % . ( yes , it is all dotty ! )
and sharpen your pencil !
A lot of engineering three views and exploded drawings ( like those aircraft stuctural drgs ) in periodicals are considerably reduced from the size they were originally drawn at ,
Probably A-O, ( twice A1 size ). About six months after having ceased drafting , one becomes somewhat clear headed. It takes that long for all the information to stop going around inside the mind !
An Occupational Hazzard . !
-
Matthew, honestly, have you ever really , truly, studied the photos in the 1960's era Model Airplane News under a magnifying glass??? What did you see besides a myriad of dots...? D>K
Ty - he actually DOES do that....
-
So jjorgensen are you building a new one ?
-
I will be building a new one. I need to finish a shark 402 I won at our club's winter fly in first. Since I have left over paints from the ME 262 project it will have a similar paint job. Debating whether to do an I-beam wing again or lost foam. I don't have a big enough building area to do the I-beam the conventional way which may have had something to do with the warp I managed to build in.
-
Hi Jim,
I mount the bellcrank on my I-Beam planes in the *suspended* manner similar to a foam wing plane. A piece of ply or bass between the sides at the top and bottom of the back edge of the spar. I haven't felt real confident in using a bellcrank *platform* in years on any of my wings. Never had one pull out even with some *not so intelligent* pull testers...........
Mongo
-
Hi Bill, even on planes that have a platform to mount the bellcrank to, I install another playwood platform above the bellcrank with a longer bolt. I have built three different planes with I-beam construction and still put ply platforms top and bottom even tho the bolt goes thru the beam. In fact I have been using threaded rod in most cases or the method that Tom Morris shows in his book with solid rod. DOC Holliday
-
I've built two of Jack's designs fw 190 and the JU 87 STUKA. I mounted the bellcrank in the 190 in the i beam suspended and on the ju 87 I mounted it suspended between plates bridging the fuse and a bit forward of the ibeam. Neither have been a problem. Both planes performed well. The stuka is a bit sensitive to a strong crosswind and because of the wing configuration it requres a little down bias at the handle. I had no issues building either of these planes. George
-
I've built two of Jack's designs fw 190 and the JU 87 STUKA. I mounted the bellcrank in the 190 in the i beam suspended and on the ju 87 I mounted it suspended between plates bridging the fuse and a bit forward of the ibeam. Neither have been a problem. Both planes performed well. The stuka is a bit sensitive to a strong crosswind and because of the wing configuration it requres a little down bias at the handle. I had no issues building either of these planes. George
And George, that stuka looks AWESOME!!!
-
Hi, Do you have a picture of the Stuka you can post here George? Thanks H^^
-
I believe that there are pictures of it under the i beamers title in the classic section. George
-
Thanks George