Jump to content

DB Sport and Scale Auster J1 Autocrat


Danny Fenton

Recommended Posts

I must start with the disclaimer that I know nothing about designing.

 

I would go with the plan side view being more likely to be correct than the former. You can see the shape of the model and incidences on the side view on a plan and you can check them, so mistakes are likely to show up. A former is more likely to have been derived from measurements of top and side view, transcribed to a laser cutter tool path. Plenty of places for a mistake to creep in, and it is not at all obvious when you look at the former on its own.

 

Edited by Dad_flyer
Spelling
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems I did former 101 an in-justice when I said it was missing, and all I had was the outside. The outside is all 

that there is doh!

 

155.thumb.JPG.f909fdfba6cea21ea7199fe7759ee791.JPG

 

154.thumb.JPG.8a3e67f244e64fbf3a4d0672c7df29ee.JPG

 

Considering how poor some bits are as far as fit, the fuel tank box unit is spot on, and the joints perfect, I am very glad too as there is some serious wood involved that you don't just fettle to fit!

 

Anyway letting the glue dry before adding the bulkheads to one side of the fus.

 

156.thumb.JPG.903017872b050ead0f530c7fd7029bef.JPG

 

157.thumb.JPG.7f64a62ec685ff67025777c8dd27984c.JPG

 

158.thumb.JPG.804cf557893e6e2fc1f373f80d4c6932.JPG

 

Cheers

Danny

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Dad_flyer said:

I must start with the disclaimer that I know nothing about designing.

 

I would go with the plan side view being more likely to be correct than the former. You can see the shape of the model and incidences on the side view on a plan and you can check them, so mistakes are likely to show up. A former is more likely to have been derived from measurements of top and side view, transcribed to a laser cutter tool path. Plenty of places for a mistake to creep in, and it is not at all obvious when you look at the former on its own.

 

Hi, you make a good point, having traced a few plans to have laser cut, it is not difficult and being a couple of mm out is not really very good.

However after I posted, and taking your thought into account, it's a lot easier to ease the ply parts than mutilate the fus sides. So I will follow your suggestion, as you say the plan should be sacred ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have joined the sides after a great deal of fettling. It hasn't aligned perfectly, but it is symmetrically.

I still have this dim and distant dream to cut much of this ply out and replace with carbon tubes, but its looking less likely all the time.

 

159.thumb.JPG.ead020ec36c427cd1f8cf02dbd2eb7bc.JPG

 

160.thumb.JPG.e12a033c68551eefdc4b2fe34ec07984.JPG

 

161.thumb.JPG.4197bc4f8cd65dbaa8ae4fa65dc6bde6.JPG

 

My big clamps don't get out much.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow Danny, she is coming together, albeit with some resistance. I don't remember having such trouble thank goodness.

However, a while back, a friend built the DB pup, and found all the cabane struts were incorrect, after some research Eddie admitted his jig was out by a country mile. All was resolved amicably, jig fixed and new steel issued.

D.D.

 

P.s.

I turned the house upside down looking for instructions for the Auster to no avail. I could have sworn there were some. Anyway, I also think my tank was supplied in the kit, but cannot recall the size.

 

Edited by Dwain Dibley.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/02/2021 at 16:36, Danny Fenton said:

Not sure how to add text between pictures but I will get there.

The laser cutting is a bit off, both in dimension and in the notches as you can see above.

And the wood is very hard, even the laser couldn't cut right through in areas, but it is usable.

 

Cheers

Danny

016.JPG

017.JPG

 

Hi David yes, i wanted a Laser but couldnt get one, so opted for a Saito 82b

 

Cheers

Danny

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks chaps. Indeed having been an electric only flyer since around 2007, I found myself in a quandry. I am designing a 1/4 scale Chipmunk to compete in F4c competition. As you may know the models sound does garner some points.  And if you aiming high then I thought I should not restrict myself to what I am very comfortable with, but to give IC a go. So this model is being powered with an IC. 

A few reasons:

Can my models withstand the vibration and constant cleaning.

Can I operate an IC engine reliably, it must start and run impeccably for competition.

Do I like it?

 

So you see this is a test of those factors, and this is the engine I will use.

 

017.thumb.JPG.2c1cbb69693d07b01b733947882b7e67.JPG

 

Cheers

Danny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Danny, I am sure the standard of your building will take an IC engine many models have been flown for years on this power.

 

The behaviour of an IC engine is down to the operator, good installation, good tank position, in line filters, correct fuel, and once in and set up don't fiddle about with the settings,

You will love the sound of the 4 stroke engine, the cleaning is worth the benefits of longer flight times and being able to fly all day without charging batteries.

Eric.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eric Robson said:

Hi Danny, I am sure the standard of your building will take an IC engine many models have been flown for years on this power.

 

The behaviour of an IC engine is down to the operator, good installation, good tank position, in line filters, correct fuel, and once in and set up don't fiddle about with the settings,

You will love the sound of the 4 stroke engine, the cleaning is worth the benefits of longer flight times and being able to fly all day without charging batteries.

Eric.   

 

Thanks Eric, I am not too concerned at my building skills, what is more concerning is my choice of materials  and the way I design. Lets just say its more the Colin Chapman school than perhaps JC Bamford. I am also concerned about detail vibrating loose.

How well would this lot survive?

 

0809.thumb.JPG.dc482b4242d7e21aa9acaf8864a2b217.JPG

 

As for you other comments we perhaps shouldn't go there ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I.C is soooo complex.....

Anyway fettled the bulky 1/2" ply blocks for the undercarriage, Good job I have a sanding station, would have taken days by hand.

 

165.thumb.JPG.880326283ecd91b838adf2e4ddd5e8a6.JPG

 

There is a hatch that goes over this section, to allow access to the fus servos, I may sneak the Rx under here too.

 

166.thumb.JPG.097c62ac5abe1615af71b663534199a2.JPG

 

Cheers

Danny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dwain Dibley. said:

Yes, once painted it was invisible.

Help yourself Danny. A thing I would avoid if I could do it over is the clear acrylic type strut fixings, they are well brittle, make some metal ones instead.

D.D.

I had thought that already DD, looked well dodgey.

 

I am struggling with the profile of the outside of the fus, at the cockpit, any pics of the fus just before covering?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...