Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
January 24, 2020, 07:08:31 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]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: documentation query  (Read 1064 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 5,091


Topic starter


Ignore
« on: April 07, 2014, 06:12:42 AM »

I've got a question about the 3 view I need with my docs for my Polikarpov in the Indoor Nats.
This is the drawing I'd like to use. I've several other PO2 drawings, but this is the one which David Deadman based his design on. I've been caught out before on the 150mm wingspan rule, so will make sure that the drawing is well over that size. The question is though, will it matter that the wing tips are cut off on one side of the front and plan views? If it does matter, then I'll just use another drawing.
To save anyone looking it up, this is what the rules say I need:


"(ii) Scale Drawings:
Accurate scale drawing(s) of the full-size aircraft that show at least the 3 main
aspects of Side View, Upper Plan View and Front End View. These drawings
must be to a common scale giving a minimum wing span of 250 mm (150 mm
minimum for Indoor and Free Flight classes), and a maximum wing span of 500
mm. If the fuselage is longer than the wingspan, these measurements will be
made on the fuselage. Unpublished drawings by the competitor or other draftsman
are not acceptable unless certified accurate in advance of the contest by an
authoritative source such as the BMFA Scale Technical Committee, the builder of
the original aircraft, or other competent authority."


Thanks,
Pete
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
documentation query
Logged
Graham Banham
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 24
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 698




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2014, 08:32:12 AM »

Pete,

I can only speak from personal experience: the Paul Matt drawings i used for the Fairchild were incomplete as published in that one wingtip was cut off to fit it on the page. I had no problem with the judges in this respect.

There are so many drawings abbreviated in this way now that i cannot see how any judge can penalise such documentation, provided it isn't something ridiculous like half a top view. Remember the primary source of scale accuracy is photographs, so one must apply logic to the provision of a supportive published cropped drawing (within reason) of a very very obviously symmetrical aircraft. By it's very nature, the reason the drawing is able to be cropped is because the aircraft IS symmetrical. A Bv141 is something different......

Even more so if the subject aircraft has been built to those drawings, as to provide another 'complete' set is somewhat self-defeating in terms of outline accuracy. Also, the rules for this year specify disqualification in the presence of digitally manipulated or enhanced images in documentation, so surely this must apply to the drawing as well as photographs, in the context of adding the missing wing tip, so to speak?   

The next question is does the 150mm rule apply to the full span or cropped image? I'd play safe and make the cropped view at least 150mm!

Graham
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 5,091


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #2 on: April 07, 2014, 10:05:54 AM »

Cheers, Graham. That all makes sense.
Logged
Ex Member
Guest

« Reply #3 on: April 07, 2014, 01:28:15 PM »

It is not unusual for any "Engineering" drawing to be cropped if it is plain and obvious that the part you are looking at is symmetrical.  In fact is in good practice in some respects as it allows better detail for a smaller drawing sheet.

Like Graham said, the very fact that the draughtsman was able to crop it must mean that in outline at least, it must be symmetrical.....
Logged
billdennis747
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 54
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,775



Ignore
« Reply #4 on: April 07, 2014, 03:18:22 PM »

It's a loophole in the rules that needs closing. To follow the logic, you would only need half the drawing. It's not much trouble to trace the missing tip and complete the drawing. Either do it and keep quiet, or explain in a note.
But it doesn't seem to matter in practice, not much does!
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 5,091


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #5 on: April 07, 2014, 04:36:04 PM »

Thanks. I'll maybe add a note then. I suppose it maybe does need clearing up due to the minimum size rule. Otherwise some poor judge, already doing quite a thankless task in my opinion, is going to find himself in a quandary at some point. As Graham suggests I shall certainly make sure my drawing is well over the 15 cm with or without the wing tip. Or I may yet just use another drawing altogether as that one is a bit clutterered due to all the extra bits showing the different versions. Dave Deadman used it because it shows the ambulance version he made in some detail, and he probably wasn't so spoiled for choice as we are these days. I've several other good three views  to choose from and if one of them also has the same degree of accuracy it may be a better bet in any case. I'll have to do some measuring.
Logged
billdennis747
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 54
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,775



Ignore
« Reply #6 on: April 07, 2014, 04:41:48 PM »

Peter, if its cluttered, just cut it up, or tipped and copy
Logged
billdennis747
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 54
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,775



Ignore
« Reply #7 on: April 07, 2014, 04:43:13 PM »

That's tippex autocorrected!
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 5,091


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #8 on: April 07, 2014, 05:01:14 PM »

Will do. It's a funny thing but I was very happy building to the Deadman plan, but now that I start getting my three view and photos ready I keep seeing extra details I should have put on. Does everyone have this problem in the pre- nats week, or do you all get that stuff properly sorted before you cut the first rib?  Grin

Logged
Graham Banham
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 24
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 698




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: April 07, 2014, 05:05:24 PM »

Hell no Pete!

I put the oil breather pipe and entry step on the Cessna yesterday!

Graham
Logged
DHnut
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 14
Offline Offline

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 666



Ignore
« Reply #10 on: April 07, 2014, 06:29:16 PM »

Pete,
        It is an imperfect world and you have just highlighted the quandary we are all dealing with. The experience we have had with out SIG when making rules is to ensure the modeller is left to make the choice and bothe the current F4A and BMFA rules do this. We all know the 3 view world is full of traps even for the wary. The decision to add detail and with it weight should not be rule driven but a decision the modeller takes. As you have just found out published plans often are not as accurate as stated. Even when you get to manufacurers drawings and I am talking G.A drawings there are discrepancies. I guess this leaves only direct measurement of a subject as definitive and then restricts you to accesible subjects. To me the important part is the balance between flying and scale points so that no one aspect dominates the results.
Maybe this is why F4C has become the preserve of very few as have many FAI events. Surely we want to enjoy the event.   
Ricky   
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 5,091


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #11 on: April 08, 2014, 03:21:37 AM »

Thanks Ricky. Just to be clear, I think the plan I used is accurate. The last minute details I'm adding are bits which are specific to the aircraft I chose to model, and which I previously ignored or didn't notice until I looked more closely at the 3 view and the extra photos I gathered for my scale evidence. I'm not complaining though- it's all part of the fun!
Logged
DHnut
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 14
Offline Offline

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 666



Ignore
« Reply #12 on: April 08, 2014, 04:42:34 AM »

Pete,
       I have just had this issue with a Comper Swift until Charlie Newman confirmed the accurate 3 view which was fortunately the one selected. The fun then started when I looked at the photos of the John Greenland aircraft and the subtle diiferences between that aircraft and the Shuttleworth aircraft showed up All I guess it shows is the need for photos if they are available.My problem is that I am usually well down the track before the realisation of the differences occur and sometimes the project stalls for a while. A Broussard is in that state at the moment. As you say it is part of the fun.     
Ricky
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 5,091


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #13 on: April 08, 2014, 05:44:27 AM »

I'm exactly the same- always spotting things only when it's too late to change them. I think the real scale maestros get all the photos together first, put all the details on the plan and make sure everything corresponds before they even start. If I did that though I doubt I'd get anything built at all!
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 5,091


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #14 on: April 08, 2014, 07:37:47 AM »

Given the thousands built it's surprisingly hard to find a single photo showing anything like a direct top or bottom view of a Polikarpov Po2. The best I can do is this underside shot, which may have to do. If anyone knows of better, I'd be very grateful!
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: documentation query
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 5,091


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #15 on: April 09, 2014, 04:24:36 PM »

Pete,
 the rules for this year specify disqualification in the presence of digitally manipulated or enhanced images in documentation

If I print a photo off my PC it invariably comes out darker than it appears on the backlit screen. To allow for this I often increase the brightness setting before printing, which stops the shadowy areas which are clear enough on the screen from being just murky darkness on the print. This surely comes down to print settings doesn't it, and wouldn't be classed as 'digital enhancement' under the rule above. Or would it?
Logged
Graham Banham
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 24
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 698




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: April 09, 2014, 04:45:37 PM »

.......and the more specific the rules, the more questions and ambiguity they raise!

I reckon just print it to get the best output from your printer matching the image on your screen Pete: i'm sure this addition to the rules is to eliminate images that are actually edited to add/remove detail that is/isn't on the model, for example

Graham
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 5,091


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #17 on: April 09, 2014, 05:10:53 PM »

Thanks Graham, I'm sure you're right. I'm too good at finding things to worry about. In any case a nice bright picture shows more of the details you've missed, not fewer!
Logged
billdennis747
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 54
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,775



Ignore
« Reply #18 on: April 09, 2014, 05:47:25 PM »

Pete,
 the rules for this year specify disqualification in the presence of digitally manipulated or enhanced images in documentation

If I print a photo off my PC it invariably comes out darker than it appears on the backlit screen. To allow for this I often increase the brightness setting before printing, which stops the shadowy areas which are clear enough on the screen from being just murky darkness on the print. This surely comes down to print settings doesn't it, and wouldn't be classed as 'digital enhancement' under the rule above. Or would it?

Pete, don't worry about it. This rule is aimed at more nefarious activity; stuff you wouldn't believe!
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 5,091


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #19 on: April 09, 2014, 06:07:48 PM »

This rule is aimed at more nefarious activity; stuff you wouldn't believe!
I'm intrigued now!
Logged
Monz
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 152
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,230



Ignore
« Reply #20 on: April 09, 2014, 06:33:45 PM »

This rule is aimed at more nefarious activity; stuff you wouldn't believe!
I'm intrigued now!

Me too. I'd imagine it's people altering photos or 3 views to suit the plan they built from or something.
Logged
SP250
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 10
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 445



Ignore
« Reply #21 on: April 10, 2014, 07:13:29 AM »

You mean like a certain scale maestro who realised there were no marks awarded for lack of markings on a model of a full size aircraft in the Shuttleworth collection.  Who then got permission to add them temporarily to the aircraft, photographed it, then sent the photos to the scale tech committee for ratification then finished the model the same way.  All so he could get extra points at the nats.
John
Logged
billdennis747
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 54
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,775



Ignore
« Reply #22 on: April 10, 2014, 08:02:57 AM »

I remember that one! And in similar vein, someone at the indoor nats with a markings-free model claimed full marks because it was 100% accurate, ie he hadn't carelessly applied any markings. Google Jet Masters disqualification. I think this is what the rule is about.
Bill
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 5,091


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #23 on: April 10, 2014, 11:37:12 AM »

John, the Shuttleworth Collection must be very obliging. Do you think, if I tell them which of their machines I'd like to model next then they'd mind flying it around with a 2 X 4 ft sheet of acetate stuck to the port wing whilst I take a few photos? Also, could they maybe wrinkle up the covering a bit and add some giant dobs of solder to the centre of the wheels?

Bill, what a mindboggling and sorry tale that Jet Masters saga is; I'd no idea! Those like me, with a morbid fascination for this kind of story, might like this link to another forum where the whole thing unfolds as it happened.
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/rc-jets-120/11585772-go-team-italy.html

Of course the Nottingham Nats is far too classy an event for us to ever have to worry about such shennanigans!



Incidentally, anyone know which is the best version of Photoshop?  Grin
Logged
SP250
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 10
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 445



Ignore
« Reply #24 on: April 11, 2014, 04:13:16 PM »

Pete

Shuttleworth - you should have asked Andy when he was chief pilot - he would probably have arranged it for laugh.

Photoshop - well it ain't Jessops they've closed down.

See you all Sunday.
Logged
Pages: [1]   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!