By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more
Forum sponsored by:
Forum sponsored by CML

RAF's Finest Biplane? Hawker Fury MkI

Advanced mass build

All Topics | Latest Posts

Search for:  in Thread Title in  
Martyn K13/11/2017 17:24:37
avatar
4337 forum posts
2962 photos

Just had a quick read through the articles. Would appreciate others views on this. I am certainly looking forward to making a start

Best wishes

Martyn

Danny Fenton13/11/2017 17:45:49
avatar
8381 forum posts
3405 photos
G10 glues really well with thin CA. Try not to ever use epoxy.....
I agree Martyn we all do things differently and long may that continue, but if you dont watch the grams next thing you know they become kilos....this is meant to be a scale model not a sport model

Cheers
Danny
Martyn K13/11/2017 17:46:48
avatar
4337 forum posts
2962 photos
Posted by Danny Fenton on 13/11/2017 17:45:49:
, but if you dont watch the grams next thing you know they become kilos....this is meant to be a scale model not a sport model

Cheers
Danny

Very true..

Martyn

McG 696913/11/2017 18:31:19
avatar
1615 forum posts
714 photos

Hi again gents,

Thank you Martyn for the G10 explanation & the download link. Thanks to José Luis as well.

Well, I just read the 1st part and my head really started to bounce horribly (could still be the fever though)... indecision

Sjeesh... OMG... or "Milliard de..." as we should say in French... surprise

The author seems to suggest to use 3mm balsa for the top wing central section (instead of 1,5) as it is a quite vulnerable area for handling and tranportation.

He also wrote that, if he was going to 'redo' it, he should make use of shear webs at the front spars for both wings.

Regarding the possible G10 strip, could a 1 or 2mm carbon rod be a substitute? Nice TE finish and stronger/lighter than GF.

Any thoughts, gents?

Cheers

Chris

Gordon Whitehead 114/11/2017 13:40:27
avatar
137 forum posts
68 photos

Hi Guys, I'm not sure I'm doing the right thing butting in right now, but don't hesitate to let me know if I'm misunderstanding the way you want to do the ailerons.

Looking at the wing rib diagrams in earlier posts, they look to be drawn with the intention of assembling the ailerons along with the rest of the wing panel. However, I'm sure that the intention on the Bryant plan is that the ailerons should be built separately using the same centre-web method as for the tail feathers. Basically you cut the ribs into top and bottom halves along the chord line, glue a set of upper rib halves along with the upper halves of the leading and trailing edges onto the centre web which is pinned flat on the building board, then invert the assembly and add the remaining rib halves and lower le, jigging as required against built-in warps. Then the block Frise leading edge extension can be added and shaped.

For those who've not met this method before, the centre web was invented way back in the 1960's for free flight scale model tailplanes as a method of reducing the risk of warping as the doped covering shrunk and the model aged. I first read about it in one of the excellent Eric Coates' articles in Aeromodeller back in the 1970s, and it does work.

The Dick van Mourik article linked earlier has a photo of an aileron in which the 1/16th balsa centre web can be seen clearly.

Out of interest I looked at my copy of the Bryant Bristol Bulldog plan, and this model doesn't have the centre web built into its ailerons. FWIW, all four ailerons on a bipe I've nearly finished building have small warps, around 1mm or so. So now I'm wondering if building them as per the Bryant Fury ailerons, which I'd never studied in such detail before, would have kept 'em straight dont know

Hope I'm not interfering too much.

Kind regards

Gordon

Edited By Gordon Whitehead 1 on 14/11/2017 13:41:27

richard dalgleish14/11/2017 13:59:33
avatar
19 forum posts
7 photos

From memory the ailerons are built separate from the wing and flat on the board. I made up the hinges and glued them in prior to adding the leading edge to the aileron.

Richard

Danny Fenton14/11/2017 18:05:32
avatar
8381 forum posts
3405 photos

Yes that all makes sense. I guess building the ailerons as part of the wing is useful when there is washout involved, that way the washout continues through the ailerons.

I do like the idea of adding a .5 carbon rod all around the wing and tailplane trailing edge, I do this on some of my models, specifically along stringers. Carbon can be an expensive material especially the thinner it gets. I will have to see how much .5mm would cost

I read through the build article last night, many thanks to Jose for sending it to me. Some interesting points, but not all of them I feel are valid, but that is just me, I build to fly and accept a hard arrival will break my models. The beauty of this hobby is that you can apply what you see as suiting your building style.

I am alarmed by the statement regarding the models innacuracy, so will be overlaying a three view or two to see how bad it is, unless somebody has done this?

Cheers

Danny

Andy Sephton 114/11/2017 18:19:52
avatar
23 forum posts
12 photos

On tha basis that there's no such thing as an accurate three-view, Danny, I would caution you against making any changes based on a comparison of three-view to plan. If you want to check the accuracy of the plan, then I would suggest you check the shapes on the plan against photographs of the aircraft you'd like to model.

Martyn K14/11/2017 18:19:56
avatar
4337 forum posts
2962 photos
Yes. The inaccuracy mention was the bit that bothered me as well. Implied it was mainly around the fus area

Martyn
Danny Fenton14/11/2017 20:13:29
avatar
8381 forum posts
3405 photos
Andy is of course correct photos trump three views everytime.
Cheers
Danny
richard dalgleish15/11/2017 10:15:12
avatar
19 forum posts
7 photos

For info folks

I entered my Fury in a BMFA flying only comp a few years ago, one thing that Phil Kent told me is that the fuselage was slightly too wide at the back end, apart from that the outline is quite accurate.

The model itself is very tough (I think) mine is built without any carbon fibre or G10 reinforcing. Its all just extra work, if I was to build another, I would look at beefing up the top of the rudder and fin, the model does have a tendency to nose all the way over if the landing speed isn't spot on. I would also increase the distance between the wheels a touch only maybe 1" just to help the roll out on landing. Apart from that follow the plans.

Richard

Danny Fenton15/11/2017 11:11:26
avatar
8381 forum posts
3405 photos

Hi Richard, thanks for that, it is good to know

What was Phil using as the reference for the fus width, did you have to provide documentation?

Cheers

Danny

richard dalgleish15/11/2017 11:27:34
avatar
19 forum posts
7 photos

Hi Danny

It was flying only comp, it was just mentioned in conversation. To be honest I don't think anyone would ever know,

Richard

Colin Leighfield15/11/2017 13:40:53
avatar
5278 forum posts
2061 photos

I think I mentioned a while ago that the Sarik advert photo in RCME of the Fury didn’t look right to me and it was the rear fuselage I was on about. Outline accuracy is more important to me than scale detail. When I get around to looking at it properly I will re-draw it if it’s not right.

McG 696916/11/2017 18:20:44
avatar
1615 forum posts
714 photos

Colin, if there is a fuselage width issue, I'm sure Danny will check carefully before committing to cutting.

As Andy wrote, three-views are not equivalent to the Bible, I'm afraid.

I've been searching the net for some top/plan view photographs, but didn't had any positive result so far. The only one I have is the Belgian K4316 after its crash landing but it is small (400x400px) and quite blurry as from 1942...

Maybe a trip to Duxford could bring a definitive solution.

Cheers

Chris

Colin Leighfield16/11/2017 22:26:54
avatar
5278 forum posts
2061 photos

Chris, I’ve got loads of reference material, shouldn’t be difficult to resolve when I get around to it, although it’s not first priority at the moment.

Jose L. G.17/11/2017 10:24:14
avatar
57 forum posts
5 photos

Good morning.

Dennis Bryant indicate in the first sheet of the plan the sources he used for desing the Fury. See the pic.hpim1484.jpg

Danny Fenton17/11/2017 16:08:17
avatar
8381 forum posts
3405 photos

Hi Jose, the profile 18 data is very weak.

I have much better drawings, including some factory drawings, which as Andy will vouch for don't mean a lot either as photos are king.

cover profile 18.jpg

fury w 1.jpeg

fury w 2.jpegwestburg sheet 1.jpg

westburg sheet 2.jpg

westburg sheet 3.jpg

westburg sheet 4.jpg

If somebody has 5 minutes and wants to oevrlay the Westburg profile and plan view over Dennis's plan I would appreciate it. I wont get time for a few days

I am just curious, this doesn't mean that Dennis is accurate or not...... but may be good enough for most people not competing.

Cheers

Danny

Percy Verance17/11/2017 16:44:16
avatar
5661 forum posts
108 photos

Dennis Bryant's plans are generally noted as being among the most accurate out there but as Dennis freely admitted to me at an OW Scale Weekend many moons ago, inaccuracies have come to light on some of his drawings since he originally penned them. At the time I met him at OW I was looking to buy a copy of his 1/4 scale Comper Swift plan, which I did, and he pointed out that there were a couple of errors on it. Having established what they were I happily went ahead and bought the plan anyway.

I also have the Bryant 1/4 scale Rollason Condor, and this seems accurate when compared to the 3 view drawings I sourced from a copy of Aeromodeller I bought in 1970. Some of the fits of the parts needed slight fettling once theyd been cut out, but lots of plans are similar in this respect. It's the fettling that makes us aeromodellers I guess.

And yes, all his older plans do show a Merco .61 as the engine of choice - as it was back then. The Condor, being a slightly newer plan, shows both an Enya .90fs and an OS Gemini. And it's a Gemini FT 1.60 which hides in the cowl of mine.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited By Percy Verance on 17/11/2017 16:55:31

Danny Fenton17/11/2017 17:32:33
avatar
8381 forum posts
3405 photos

And we all know how innacurate the Chipmunk plan was don't we chaps

Cheers

Danny

All Topics | Latest Posts

Please login to post a reply.

Magazine Locator

Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!

Find RCM&E! 

Email News - Join our newsletter

Love Model Aircraft? Sign up to our emails for the latest news and special offers!

Latest Forum Posts
Support Our Partners
Gliders Distribution
CML
electricwingman 2017
SHREK
Expo Tools 14 July
Wings and Wheels 2018
Overlander
Advertise With Us
Latest "For Sale" Ads
How has your building graduated?
Q: Did you start with ARTF and move to building from kits or vice versa?

 Started with ARTF moved to building from kits only
 Started with ARTF moved to building from plans only
 Started with ARTF moved to building from kits and building from plans
 Started with building kits or from plans and moved to ARTF
 I only build from kits or plans
 I only build ARTF
 I only build from kits
 I only build from plans
 Other (Please specify in thread)

Latest Reviews
Digital Back Issues

RCM&E Digital Back Issues

Contact us

Contact us