Martyn K Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 Been trying to overlay but failed miserably despite cropping the plan and 3v to the same physical dimensions. I'll try again later but at first glance, Dennis plan looks a little more porky.Edited By Martyn K on 17/11/2017 17:44:39 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McG 6969 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 Hi all, I will try an overlay tonight, Danny. Did I mention "try"? ... so, wish me luck. Cheers Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McG 6969 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 Hi again, So, I tried an overlay of the plan view as there seemed to be problem with the width of the aft fuselage... and, well... It's a bit of a chaos when you try to put the two drawings on top of each other. I cleaned up the Westburg drawing as much as possible, converted it in 'red' ad used some 50% transparency. As far as I can see there isn't a lot more width of the fuselage between the two. Except maybe a tiny little bit at F10 & F11 (the Westburg being slightly 'smaller'. If it is the case, then Mr Phil must have some kind of 'dimensional super-vision'. On the other hand, if you take a look at the cowl (cylinder head) blisters, one of the two is definitely not correct. I won't have that problem as I will be using a Hispano-Suiza engine... héhé... Do you want me to 'try' a profile view as well, Danny? Cheers Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McG 6969 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 Hi again (bis), I wasn't totally happy with my first overlay, so decided to have a second view. The red Westburg drawing was a bit out of scale, so this is better (I hope). The front of the cowl is more accurate and checking with the top wing gives a similar dimension (cfr yellow rectangle) and while F11 is still slightly narrower, I discovered that the Westburg stab is further to the right. So the Bryant fuse might be a tad too short, giving the impression of a 'fatter' back end... But then who's the apprentice here? Cheers Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff S Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 I'm not intending to join in on this project but I'm following the thread because I think the subject is a beautiful aeroplane. In all the angst over the true scale accuracy of the fuselage (at least) I'm led to wonder if all full size examples would be identical. After all they were built before modern mass production was in full swing and, moreover, in wood, which is a natural material. Isn't it at least possible that there might be some slight variation in the shape? Were they all manufactured in the same facility? If not then it's even more likely that tiny inconsistencies might develop. Just a thought and probably wrong. Geoff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Fenton Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 Geoff you are no doubt correct that some variation must creep in, especially over time. But I also think PV is correct, this airframe is built using a jig so they should be fairly consistant? well at least when they left the production line. Anyway this is not really important, but still interesting, to most of us the aircraft, accurate or not, will look lovely. I am just exploring this as I think it is good to raise awareness of the process that the scale guys go through. PS nice job Chris Cheers Danny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leighfield Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 Hawker used their patented method of construction using prefabricated steel tube riveted together, exactly as used later in the Hurricane. They would all have been identical. Wood was used for stringers but had no structural role in the fuselage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McG 6969 Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 Hi Danny et all, I don't known if it's still of any importance but here is my profile overlay of both drawings with the Bryant one in black and the Westburg in red. I had a lot more 'cleaning' of the surroundings and could quite easily align the trustlines. The front of both look very similar except that Dennis's top wing cabanes are 'longer' and there are a few degrees more rake at the u/c on the Westburg drawing. The aft deck of the Bryant drawing is higher on its full length and together with nearly the same at the fuse bottom, it could result in that 'bulkier' look that has been described. Bryant's fin post also seems to be somewhat 'higher'. It's quite funny that Westburg's drawing is showing the K1930 (SQ Commander Slatter / n°43 Sq. / Tangmere) which is the one from the Landuyt Collection based at Wevelgem Airfield here in Belgium. Cheers Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Fenton Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 Nice work Chris. The Bryant fin looks more like the photo, what do you think?CheersDanny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McG 6969 Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 Thank you, Danny. The pupils should obviously always agree with their teacher, but my mum always pretended that this one was a bit of a rebel... In fact, I was asking myself the same question - about the fin, not the rebel - and I did an overlay with the K1930. Taking into consideration that the pic isn't 100% profile, the Westburg drawing is very close to a full match. IMHO, together with the remarks concerning the top and profile view, the Westburg drawing seems more scale to me than the Bryant one. Apologies, sir... no board erasers, please... Cheers Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Fenton Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 Lol Chris You are right it does look closer. If we can find a good plan view photo we can verify that angle too. Anybody found one?The Westburg drawing is looking good though One house point to Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Fenton Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 Lol Chris You are right it does look closer. If we can find a good plan view photo we can verify that angle too. Anybody found one?The Westburg drawing is looking good though One house point to Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kc Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 I think you are taking it a bit seriously! It's what looks right that matters... However it's worth saying that Philip Kent ( I think) did an article about working from 3 views and getting the tail length wrong - he said people measured the drawings and then made the fus sides to that length ........but when curved inwards the fus sides shortened quite a bit making the plane look out of proportion. I believe it was on the Sparrowhawk he found this. Perhaps my memory is faulty......... I think he said it's not the PLAN that is wrong it's that people made it to the plan length not the ' developed length ' ( is that the right term?) Edited By kc on 18/11/2017 11:23:52 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn K Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 Hi ChrisExcellent work. Thanks. How does the 3v westbury compare with K1930 around the cabane and upper wing location? That looks like it is different to the plan as well. KCs point is very valid. The correct longeron length can be calculated using pythagoras using a generalisation that the rear fus sides are straight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Fenton Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 Yes KC is quite right. We are getting csrried away The curvature does indeed make a difference and the plan sides need to be slightly longer. You really dont have to go to these lengths the model is a proven design and looks right. I think the process has merit and is why we are exploring it. Even my hero Brian Taylor enlarged tailplanes.....CheersDanny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn K Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 Quote. Even my hero Brian Taylor enlarged tailplanes.....Nooooo. I am mortified Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose L. G. Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 Chris AMAZING WORK have you done with the plans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McG 6969 Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 Thanks Martyn, The location of the upper wing is fine as it is in the same vertical axis in relation to the trustline. Regarding the cabanes, it's difficult to tell as the pic isn't 'full profile' since the photographer was standing (lower than the trustline) on the ground. In fact, you obtain some kind of 'yaw perspective' accentuated by the camera's type of lens. But lengthwise it's still ok. Items like prop, cowl panel lines, engine exhausts position, canopy window even the tail skid are very accurately represented on the Westburg drawing. For me, it's the best one of the two drawings. ... but then maybe Confucius should be called in... Cheers Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McG 6969 Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 Gracias también, José. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Fenton Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 I am sure Andy will be along soon to sort us out. But that drawing does look good doesnt it?CheersDanny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kc Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 It occurs to me that as everything internet based is accesible for ever then future scale judges will be able to read all the above 'errors' and fudges and use them against you! It may have been Boddo who said that scale modelling is to give the illusion that we are watching the real thing. That's the important point, not rivet counting! But I suppose you should try to get it as scale as reasonably possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McG 6969 Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 Following Martyn's question, I had another overlay but with the entire bird. Concerning the top wing, being constant chord, the perspective shows that it matches all right when the size gets the same as the drawing. From the cowl blisters down to the cockpit glass, it seems to nicely match. May I close my Photoshop now? Laptop is getting a bit warm. As per Percy's post, I think at least one of us should build a Fury on floats... Cheers Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Fenton Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 Well done Chris yes please give your laptop a rest CheersDanny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.