Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
July 13, 2020, 10:09:00 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: MB-5 scale drawing by Fred Spring??  (Read 467 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
charlieman
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 313

Topic starter


Ignore
« on: June 29, 2020, 04:14:06 PM »

I would like a larger, more viewer friendly (old weak eyes!) of this possible (does anyone know?)Fred Spring drawing:
https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=44850537&postcount=5

An original format copy would be great, but would take a readable copy or electronic format.  Larger,  being the point. Will pay reasonable copy and shipping costs, etc.
Logged
Prosper
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 62
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,540



Ignore
« Reply #1 on: June 30, 2020, 03:38:38 AM »

charlieman, I know I don't have to warn an old hand like you about the fidelity of aircraft drawings, but for anyone else reading this, a couple of points - when I saw the 'Scale Planes' logo on the drawing you've attached, red lights started flashing. I found this bloke's drawing of a Chilton DW1 when researching my first own-design model, and although an aeromodelling rookie, I was not an aeroplane rookie - I could see it was rubbish at a glance. The artist seems to use incredible intricacy and detail to suggest authenticity. I haven't studied the M.B. 5 drawing and don't have time to, but not ony was the Chilton DW1 drawing glaringly, fundamentally wrong, but I recall that many of the 'details' were pure fantasy.

I can see at a glance that the RAF 34 aerofoil he portrays is nothing like the real thing - he didn't even spot the very obvious reflex.

The Karlstrom drawing is good but the tailplane is slightly too large and the wrong outline. The top line of the fuselage is elevated slightly. When I adjusted the Karlstrom side-view to match the attached cross-sections drawing, it also matched photos much better.

However, the author of the attached cross-sections (Orin Humphries? Sp?) provides us with authentic-sounding sources too. So how is it that his attempt at an RAF 34 aerofoil is such a joke? In fact it reminds me very much of the RAF 34 on the Peter Cooksley drawing of the D.H. Mosquito. Now, D.H. used the RAF 34 several times I think, and perhaps they modified it, and perhaps the Mosquito aerofoil was exactly as Peter Cooksley depicts it. But as best I can judge from photos the M.B. 5 just has the reg'lar RAF 34.

Stephen.
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: MB-5 scale drawing by Fred Spring??
Re: MB-5 scale drawing by Fred Spring??
Logged
DHnut
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 18
Offline Offline

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 786



Ignore
« Reply #2 on: June 30, 2020, 07:05:26 AM »

I use the RAF 34 on my models and it does not look anything like that opne. Also I have built a MB5 for peanut from the AM plan and it has flat sides for a lot of the fuselage. This is mentioned in Aeroplane Monthly as these were removable for servicing. This clearly evident in the photos of the aircraft.
Ricky
Logged
charlieman
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 313

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #3 on: June 30, 2020, 01:59:24 PM »

I just wanted to do a reasonable and fair review of the drawing, compared to photos and limited published data available. I wanted to read the notes.

You guys touch on a problem I've encountered MANY times. Draft persons often invent features and detail without actual/apparent documentation. In the Literary world it's called "producing copy", simply put, giving a willing audience something to read, but more importantly a product to sell. Accuracy has little to do with why the bulk of "scale drawings" get published.  It also reminds me a bit of Buzz Light year's explanation of  flight, which he explained as "falling with style".  Some might call a drawing which is long on detail but poor on substance "bait and switch" or even "smoke and mirrors", etc.

Logged
charlieman
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 313

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #4 on: June 30, 2020, 02:26:05 PM »

At this point, the jury is still out for me re: "flat" fuselage sides,  If there is  a good photo showing that feature, please advise.  I ready to be corrected, one way or the other. I have the very drawing Prosper shared  The drawings looks crude, almost more sketch than a "mechanical drawing". The information has the look of technical correctness, but can we trust it? The airfoil looks RAF  34ish to me, even if not bang on. I was thinking this is the one I'd use https://m-selig.ae.illinois.edu/ads/afplots/raf34.gif
Thank for you input, fellows!
Logged
Prosper
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 62
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,540



Ignore
« Reply #5 on: July 01, 2020, 11:11:29 AM »

Quote from: Prosper
I haven't studied the M.B. 5 drawing and don't have time to. . .
Oh, okay then. . .after Ricky's post I had to take a peek. Eeuch - it's as bad as I thought! The aircraft had flat side panels screwed to the welded-steel frame. . .the panels curved almost imperceptibly the last inch or two of their height. Note the sharp leading edges of the fin and tailplane, and the dead straight taper of the finpost..

Stephen.
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: MB-5 scale drawing by Fred Spring??
Re: MB-5 scale drawing by Fred Spring??
Re: MB-5 scale drawing by Fred Spring??
Re: MB-5 scale drawing by Fred Spring??
Logged
RalphS
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 25
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 899



Ignore
« Reply #6 on: July 01, 2020, 11:34:23 AM »

I remember an article in Aeroplane Monthly that showed part of the fuselage with some of the side panels off.  Pretty sure that the fuselage framing was very flat.  A quick search showed Aeroplane Monthly Nov 1973 (pic of yellow Ryan PT-22 on cover) had an article on the MB5.  This was probably what DHnut remembers too.  Someone must have a copy.  My copy went to the re-cycling centre some time ago!
Logged
charlieman
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 313

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #7 on: July 01, 2020, 03:12:12 PM »

Prosper,
thanks for the insight! I put a straight edge on the tall leg of the P(rototype marking) and it is indeed straight over its entire ht. View is oblique from front. Good catch on the stab airfoil! Point to point skinning appears in lower aft radiator scoop paneling. Not the lower profile edge is curved but the reflected highlight indicates a simple curve in area above the edge. 

So, are we saying the old Aeromodeller scale drawing is most correct  MB-5 treatment, so far?
Logged
DHnut
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 18
Offline Offline

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 786



Ignore
« Reply #8 on: July 01, 2020, 04:48:47 PM »

Thank you everyone. There was a note in the article about easily removable flat panels and as you all say the Aeromodeller drawing is a good one. I have a copy of the Aeroplane monthly and will check.
Ricky 
Logged
Prosper
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 62
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,540



Ignore
« Reply #9 on: July 02, 2020, 05:31:26 AM »

Quote from: DHnut
. . .as you all say the Aeromodeller drawing is a good one.
I'm afraid you'll have to "include me out" there Ricky. I can't remember the drawing. I'm highly sceptical of all Aeromodeller drawings though. Two I can immediately bring to mind (oops - that's up to three already): Fairey Battle - dreadful. Leopard Moth - ridiculous. Chilton DW1 - comically bad. There's absolutely no attempt at fidelity in any of 'em.

Stephen.
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: MB-5 scale drawing by Fred Spring??
Re: MB-5 scale drawing by Fred Spring??
Re: MB-5 scale drawing by Fred Spring??
Logged
charlieman
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 313

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #10 on: July 02, 2020, 10:22:08 AM »

I went back to the photos in the Aeromodeller article and remembered why I ejected them, years ago. I see that Prosper has kindly re-posted one of those views, at much better  resolution, so the point made is much clearer, now. One can appreciate in the cockpit close-up(side panels removed) that the former at the rear of the cowl (firewall?) has a slight curve, at side, as does  former at cockpit. These sections definitely not "flat sided", as indicated by Aeromodeller.

Can we reject the info in the crude, but dimensioned drawing, because we don't like the way the renderer shows his fuselage sections and airfoil?? Has anyone got the second part of the 2 part MB-5 magazine articles, from which those sketches came???

I can't say ALL the MAP series of drawings were/are suspect just because  some/many are blatantly bad. IIRC G.A.G. Cox did a terrible Spit Mk XI drawing but judge his Beechcraft Model 17 "Stagger wing" to be the best treatment of that particular American classic. Infamous William Wylam produced any number of inventive works but did manage a few stellar efforts when/if he had good data. 

Logged
charlieman
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 313

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #11 on: July 02, 2020, 10:37:08 AM »

Here's link to rejuivinated discussion over on RC Groups: https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?2729496-Martin-Baker-MB-3-and-MB-5
Logged
Prosper
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 62
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,540



Ignore
« Reply #12 on: July 04, 2020, 05:36:46 AM »

Quote from: charlieman
IIRC G.A.G. Cox did a terrible Spit Mk XI drawing but judge his Beechcraft Model 17 "Stagger wing" to be the best treatment of that particular American classic. Infamous William Wylam produced any number of inventive works but did manage a few stellar efforts when/if he had good data.
That's fair comment. I've poked around a bit and it looks as if this same Fred Spring has produced very believable Spitfire drawings. I just wish these artists would signal somehow, which drawing was an invention, and which was a properly developed and sound representation. I really think the former far exceed the latter. True, even the abominable efforts serve as a starting point from which a modeller - thanks mainly to the internet - can put together a much superior representation.

Stephen.
Logged
charlieman
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 313

Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #13 on: July 05, 2020, 07:21:21 AM »

Really appreciate the interchange, gentlemen!

Had a thought about "flat" panels at sides. Are the panels truly flat in shape or are the removable panels constructed of flat sheet aluminum? Could make a difference in our understanding!

P-51's B/C/D have a removable aluminum panel below the stainless steel exhaust panels, that runs from chin intake to canted fire wall, each side of cowl. It is approx. 8" tall and near 8'-0" long. It is held to the airframe with dzuse fasteners, appearing very much like side panels on MB-5. My point is, when these panels are removed, it is common practice to place one or both on the ground, directly below CL of cowl (out of way temp storage), with the outside surface facing up. Except for a bit of an S shape at foremost end/edge, the piece lays " flat" on the ground.  Could this be what's happening on MB-5 sides? Could we be confusing "flat wrapped" for a strict conception of a flat surface?
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!