Good morning Daniel. WOW I have missed this build. I will go back to the beginning and have a look. Cheers Grant
Daniel, When you "jumped ships", so to speak, from nautical to airships I'll bet you thought you were going to get away from rigging. 
Hi Ron, Ha, I knew about the cabling, but the sewing of the wing fabric was a big surprise.
Hello Grant, I'm glad to have you on board, I would say have a seat but for this trip you have to lay down and hang on to the wings!
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2021
- Messages
- 4,762
- Points
- 688
Flying a contraption like that is either for the very brave or for the very stupid. Wanting to fly along as a passenger is having no common sense at all (and possibly no grey matter either).Hello Grant, I'm glad to have you on board, I would say have a seat but for this trip you have to lay down and hang on to the wings!
I've just come across your great project, very impressive, I'm in.
Good morning all.
This update addresses two topics, one being how to hold down the wings onto the multi jig since the wings are covered and the other being the anhedral angle on the wings. This jig was designed for use by exposed wings, so I had to adapt by using some paper clips and document clips. My solution for the hold down.
The second topic looks at what appears to be an excessive anhedral angle. Ron and Johan both commented on the large sag you can see in the Smithsonian photo in my earlier post. It turns out I had the data in my research notes all the time as well. The value is a 10" drop from center to edge of wing tip as shown by a Mr. Herb Kelly and Harvey Dexter. I still have no data regarding how much this amount is reduced under full wing loading.
I did my own measurements and scale up calculations for fun to see how the model compares. Also, some more pictures of the built in anhedral of the multi jig.
This has become a fun and challenging build, I sure enjoy everyone's thoughts and contributions, thank you!
This update addresses two topics, one being how to hold down the wings onto the multi jig since the wings are covered and the other being the anhedral angle on the wings. This jig was designed for use by exposed wings, so I had to adapt by using some paper clips and document clips. My solution for the hold down.
The second topic looks at what appears to be an excessive anhedral angle. Ron and Johan both commented on the large sag you can see in the Smithsonian photo in my earlier post. It turns out I had the data in my research notes all the time as well. The value is a 10" drop from center to edge of wing tip as shown by a Mr. Herb Kelly and Harvey Dexter. I still have no data regarding how much this amount is reduced under full wing loading.
I did my own measurements and scale up calculations for fun to see how the model compares. Also, some more pictures of the built in anhedral of the multi jig.
This has become a fun and challenging build, I sure enjoy everyone's thoughts and contributions, thank you!
Hi Adi, glad to have along for the ride.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2021
- Messages
- 4,762
- Points
- 688
That 10" anhedral seems to be undisputed; from another source, see page-4, post-397597, I found the same value.
The anhedral of the model is too small by a factor of two, if I did my math right (10"x25.4/16=15.875mm/0.625").
Regardless of the anhedral being right or not, those wings look great.
Good morning Daniel. I am hanging…Hello Grant, I'm glad to have you on board, I would say have a seat but for this trip you have to lay down and hang on to the wings!
. A fun project you are working on. Luckily you have a mathematical/engineering brain so all those angles and structures on this contraption (not sure we can call it an airplane
) are well looked after. Awesome job sewing the wing fabric-you Look highly proficient behind that sewing machine. Cheers Grant
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2021
- Messages
- 4,762
- Points
- 688
I owe y'all an apology; I overlooked the unit notations in Dan's analysis and wrongfully concluded a factor 2 mismatch, mixing up inches with mm's and 1:16 with full scale... (And no, I'm not going to give you lame excuses like "too early in the morning" or "I didn't have any coffee yet", or "I had a glass of wine too many the other night".)Corrected, the difference between the full scale Wright flyer and Dan's 1:16 model is a factor of 1,28.
No apology necessary Johan, I am truly honored to have you watching, commenting and critiquing this build. Your engineering background in design and development of real aircraft is invaluable to me. Plus, you are a very skilled modeler whom I enjoy watching.
Corrected, the difference between the full scale Wright flyer and Dan's 1:16 model is a factor of 1,28.
I’m going to keep these in mind for some of my future calculations, in fact I’m just going for all of the above
. Cheers Grant
I fully agree with your factor, Johan: 15,875 related to 12,36 = 1,28.
Corrected, the difference between the full scale Wright flyer and Dan's 1:16 model is a factor of 1,28.
Daniel only needs to apply 3.51 mm of pressure on each side. Let’s calculate how many N that is ………
And I agreed with Daniel: no apology necessary.
During the build of the BN I also made a mistake with the mm and inches.
Regards, Peter
Last edited:
Anybody want to bet on whether or not these wings snap back to a straight profile once released from the jig?
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2021
- Messages
- 4,762
- Points
- 688
Once we had to use double dimensioned and toleranced drawings... Chaos ensued. We ended up using the metric system above the measurement line and the imperial system below. Speaking as an engineer, it never should have been allowed.I fully agree with your factor, Johan: 15,875 related to 12,36 = 1,28.
Daniel only needs to apply 3.51 mm of pressure on each side. Let’s calculate how many N that is ………
And I agreed with Daniel: no apology necessary.
Regards, Peter
A real classic incident regarding mixing up imperial and metric units, amongst other issues, is the Gimli Glider.
I really prefer the metric system, but I just can't get my head around using a comma where there should be a period.
Unless you add a "bow string" along the longitudinal axis.
.... then you only have to say that this shows it's posities during the start .......
I would like to place a bid: a free walking trip to Rome, completely unaccompanied ......
I really prefer the metric system, but I just can't get my head around using a comma where there should be a period.
At this number it's my typing error .......... (I didn't edit it in my text, it's already replied .....
)
WOW!!! I just read about this.