Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
November 14, 2018, 01:27:06 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with email, password and session length
 
Home Help Search Login Register
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Consolidated PT-3 for Indoor Rubber  (Read 2839 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 92
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,347


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #25 on: September 03, 2018, 05:06:22 PM »

Thanks, packardpursuit. I've now threaded on the spokes. I drilled 12 holes in the rims originally, resulting in a 24 spoke wheel (12 each side) made with one continuous thread threaded through with a needle in a pattern I devised for previous spokie efforts. I then removed the wheels from the jigs but decided they looked drastically under-spoked. I'm not too worried about getting the exact number right (good luck any judge who wants to count them on my documentation photos!) but they should at least look approximately correct. So, I just drilled another set of holes in between the first holes and threaded on more spokes, so now have 48 on each wheel. Possibly should have painted the hubs and rims before doing the spokes, but I was worried that the drill holes would all fill with paint. Hopefully I can just work a small brush in among the threads. I'm quite pleased with these now.
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Consolidated PT-3 for Indoor Rubber
Re: Consolidated PT-3 for Indoor Rubber
Re: Consolidated PT-3 for Indoor Rubber
Re: Consolidated PT-3 for Indoor Rubber
Logged
OZPAF
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 163
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 4,419



Ignore
« Reply #26 on: September 03, 2018, 08:19:54 PM »

They look the part Pete.

John
Logged
danmellor
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 51
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,171




Ignore
« Reply #27 on: September 03, 2018, 08:41:10 PM »

Well deserved kudos. I'll never have that much patience!

Cheers,

Dan.
Logged
billdennis747
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 48
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,149



Ignore
« Reply #28 on: September 04, 2018, 03:47:20 AM »

They look just the job Pete. Now you just need to knock up the aeroplane to attach to them.
Logged
Andrew Darby
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 63
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,136




Ignore
« Reply #29 on: September 04, 2018, 09:47:05 AM »

Brilliant Pete!  Kudos from me too!  Grin

Andrew
Logged

Klunk
skycafe
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 2
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 207



Ignore
« Reply #30 on: September 04, 2018, 12:20:48 PM »

Kudos!   What 'thread' is used for the spokes?
Logged
Squirrelnet
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 11
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 147




Ignore
« Reply #31 on: September 04, 2018, 02:26:05 PM »

Very nice Pete, look forward to seeing the rest of the PT-3 emerge  Smiley
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 92
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,347


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #32 on: September 10, 2018, 04:49:51 PM »

Thanks for all the nice wheels comments. I'll post another pic when they're painted.

Meanwhile, before building commences properly, I've been considering which precise example to model. I thought I'd already decided, but my decision was based on the assumption that my specific subject aircraft would have to match one of my end, side or plan view photos. However, reading the static rules again I think I might be okay to just add another non-cropped photo (for example a three quarter view) to show my chosen aircraft, so long as I still present the end, side and plan view photos of other PT-3s as well. Is this correct? If so, that might give me a little more choice of colour and marking schemes.

The rule actually says...

 (i) Photographic evidence:
At least three different photographs or printed reproductions of a full size aircraft
which must be the same type and mark number as the actual subject aircraft being
modelled. Each of these photographs or printed reproductions, which need not be
originals, must show the complete aircraft, preferably from different aspects and
with a minimum aeroplane image size of 150mm.
At least one photograph or printed reproduction must show the actual subject
aircraft modelled.
Logged
g_kandylakis
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 40
Offline Offline

Greece Greece

Posts: 443




Ignore
« Reply #33 on: September 10, 2018, 07:41:12 PM »

Hi Pete,

yes, the minimum requirement is indeed one photograph of the actual aeroplane being modelled.

More are always better of course, but one will do nicely, as long as you have other supporting photographs of different aircraft of the same type...

So, start cutting some wood. You already have wheels just sitting there  Grin

George
Logged

scale free flight & micro RC
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 92
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,347


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #34 on: September 11, 2018, 12:58:03 PM »

Thanks, George, and you're right; enough prevaricating!

To that end, the sides are now built one atop the other, directly over the blown up drawing. There'll eventually be a couple of side stringers which will hold the tissue slightly away from the fuselage sides, so I wasn't too worried about keeping the vertical spacers in the scale positions.
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Consolidated PT-3 for Indoor Rubber
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 92
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,347


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #35 on: September 25, 2018, 05:24:43 PM »

A little bit of progress...
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Consolidated PT-3 for Indoor Rubber
Logged
danmellor
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 51
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,171




Ignore
« Reply #36 on: September 28, 2018, 05:37:42 PM »

I wish I had that attention span... Looking great, Pete!!

Dan.
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 92
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,347


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #37 on: October 10, 2018, 05:26:13 PM »

Cheers, Dan.

Been bending wire for the cabane and also the slightly complicated undercarriage. The first picture shows the only loadbearing u/c struts.  These are one long zigzaggy bit of wire, bound and soldered where it meets in the middle and fixed into the fus. after being stitched and epoxied into a little 'balsa sandwich' cross piece. These legs are quite springy and will hopefully take most of the knocks.

All the rest is thinner (and therefore lighter) wire, and essentially just cosmetic. To get the wire to something like scale thickness I covered it in grass stems after gathering some likely bits on a sunny walk this morning. Hopefully it'll all look good once painted (although previous experience tells me that grass stems take paint surprisingly badly!)
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Consolidated PT-3 for Indoor Rubber
Re: Consolidated PT-3 for Indoor Rubber
Re: Consolidated PT-3 for Indoor Rubber
Re: Consolidated PT-3 for Indoor Rubber
« Last Edit: October 10, 2018, 05:37:46 PM by Pete Fardell » Logged
F F modeller
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 59
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,247


Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #38 on: October 10, 2018, 05:56:05 PM »

That's looking great Pete  Smiley
Logged
Tim Horne
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 12
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 105




Ignore
« Reply #39 on: October 10, 2018, 06:19:08 PM »

Very impressive Pete, that looks complicated!
Logged
Squirrelnet
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 11
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 147




Ignore
« Reply #40 on: October 11, 2018, 02:17:46 AM »

Looking really good Pete, love the grass stems for Uc fairings I've not seen that before
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 92
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,347


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #41 on: October 25, 2018, 04:47:47 PM »

Thanks chaps. Chris, I can't remember where I heard the grass stem idea first- possibly Andy Sephton who has certainly used it on a few of his smaller models.

Not a massive amount of progress whilst the forum was down, but I do now have a tail, and have finished sheeting the nose and cockpit areas.
I'm mildly worried that the tailpalne is going to be a bit small. As my plan view is one of those which only shows one side of the wings, you get a slightly false impression of the wing/tail ratio on the drawing. Oh well, it might still be okay.

On with the wings next.
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Consolidated PT-3 for Indoor Rubber
Re: Consolidated PT-3 for Indoor Rubber
Re: Consolidated PT-3 for Indoor Rubber
Logged
strat-o
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 5
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 326



Ignore
« Reply #42 on: October 25, 2018, 06:03:06 PM »

Nice!  As far as stability goes, one thing that should put your mind at ease is the wings have some stagger.  I think that setting the lead wing to a sightly higher angle of attack than the trailing wing adds stability that can compensate for a tail plane that is too small. 

Marlin
Logged
OZPAF
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 163
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 4,419



Ignore
« Reply #43 on: October 25, 2018, 08:18:41 PM »

That's coming on well Peter. I like the proportions and the semi full size structure layout.

John
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 92
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,347


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #44 on: November 07, 2018, 01:22:13 PM »

Wings coming together. Pics soon.
Just need to fix the top ones to the centre section and am wondering about Richard's suggestion here...
Maybe a slight dihedral angle tweak up, to ensure she circles reliably

How much is a slight tweak I wonder? Model span is 27.6 inches.
Measured on this front view, and backed up by photos, scale dihedral is about 2.5 degrees top wing and 3 degrees bottom.
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Consolidated PT-3 for Indoor Rubber
Logged
Graham Banham
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 20
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 587




Ignore
« Reply #45 on: November 07, 2018, 01:34:01 PM »

Pete, at that span the 9 degrees dihedral we normally use for low wingers would result in just over 2 inches at the tip, which would look excessive and probably isn’t necessary. I might go for half that at least though, on all four panels, given 3 degrees equates to roughly 0.75 inches at the tip.

Logged
billdennis747
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 48
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,149



Ignore
« Reply #46 on: November 07, 2018, 02:07:46 PM »

Pete, I think it's a very stable layout and will fly perfectly well indoors with scale dihedral. One degree extra max. Nothing ruins a model like gross dihedral, or wrecks your static score. Is it rigid or flexible? Thin carbon rods will let the wings rise a little.
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 92
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,347


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #47 on: November 07, 2018, 03:47:33 PM »

Thanks both. I'll maybe do about 4 deg on bottom and 3.5 on top then. The half degree difference between upper and lower is just about noticable on end view photos like this one, so I'll keep it.
Bill, I'm planning to fix the bottom wings with carbon rods into tubes, but the top pair pair are going to just be glued to the centre section and then the whole thing dropped down onto the cabane.
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: Consolidated PT-3 for Indoor Rubber
Logged
DavidJP
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 41
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,540




Ignore
« Reply #48 on: November 09, 2018, 09:18:46 AM »

I hope this one will prove rewarding in flight and in return for the dedication you are showing here.  It is looking very good.  You are going for it!

Not completely sure but the tyres in that last photo look a little less butch than in earlier ones.  I like the chubby ones.
Logged
F F modeller
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 59
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,247


Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #49 on: November 09, 2018, 09:40:49 AM »

I'm not sure I would trust a photo like that, Pete ... the camera would have to be zoomed in very far from the subject for me to even begin to trust one.
When I take photos for dog portraits I try to get as far away as I can without losing detail in order to reduce parallax error ... well, big noses at least!
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!