Looks very promising my friend!
I'm rather anxious on how that concave covering will look after applying some dope...Hello everyone, a short update here to highlight a proof of concept that has such good results I couldn't wait to show it. As you know the underside of each wing is concave in design, so covering the wing surface had to be done in a glue each rib then roll the material over it and gently smooth it out. Normally you would glue down the trailing edge all the way then pull the covering as a sheet over the whole wing and glue down on the leading edge. I will use this method on the top side of the wing. Check it out.
View attachment 469135View attachment 469136View attachment 469137
So far, my plan is working, the seam between the top and bottom cover will be fairly easy to effect on the leading edge, not so much on the trailing edge.
Thanks for looking in.
Actually, Johan I will not be applying any dope, just the muslin glued on and that's it. The original Flyer only had unbleached muslin non doped as well.I'm rather anxious on how that concave covering will look after applying some dope...
I hope I can replicate the sag as well. I do have some built in but not that much, hoping to cable in some more during rigging. The multi jig has this sag accounted for, I just have to wait and see.I never realized how much anhedral there was in the wings.
Good question Johan. So far, I haven't read of that type of information. I doubt it exists knowing the plane only flew twice on the same day then while being unattended the wind flipped it over, broke it, and it never flew again. But I suppose they could have had some kind of tattle tale rigged up that would reveal that kind of data.Those wings look real good.
I wonder though how much upsweep these wings would see, if any, while under airload
Well, in the movie version there was a ton .Good question Johan. So far, I haven't read of that type of information. I doubt it exists knowing the plane only flew twice on the same day then while being unattended the wind flipped it over, broke it, and it never flew again. But I suppose they could have had some kind of tattle tale rigged up that would reveal that kind of data.
You lost me there Paul, or I haven't seen the movie yet?Well, in the movie version there was a ton .
And as we all know, what's shown in a movie is the undeniable truth...Well, in the movie version there was a ton .
On the web I found a drawing, stating a 10" anhedral. Don't know the accuracy of that value though.Good question Johan. So far, I haven't read of that type of information. I doubt it exists knowing the plane only flew twice on the same day then while being unattended the wind flipped it over, broke it, and it never flew again. But I suppose they could have had some kind of tattle tale rigged up that would reveal that kind of data.
C’mon Daniel. Every kid who went to school in the US saw the ‘movie version’ in 8th grade science class. That’s how we know Americans were first in flight.You lost me there Paul, or I haven't seen the movie yet?
Thats good information, like you I wonder how much that dimension reduced under flight load.On the web I found a drawing, stating a 10" anhedral. Don't know the accuracy of that value though.
View attachment 470082
Hmm, must have been absent the day they showed it Paul, I did see Niel Armstrong's first step on the moon live thoughC’mon Daniel. Every kid who went to school in the US saw the ‘movie version’ in 8th grade science class. That’s how we know Americans were first in flight.
That statement is up for debate, although I'm not looking forward opening this can of worms.C’mon Daniel. Every kid who went to school in the US saw the ‘movie version’ in 8th grade science class. That’s how we know Americans were first in flight.
Me too! I was home that day sitting in front of the TV with my mom. I still can picture it like it was yesterday.I did see Niel Armstrong's first step on the moon live though