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 K17/11/2017 17:43:38
avatar
4365 forum posts
2988 photos
Been trying to overlay but failed miserably despite cropping the plan and 3v to the same physical dimensions. I'll try again later but at first glance, Dennis plan looks a little more porky.

Edited By Martyn K on 17/11/2017 17:44:39

McG 696917/11/2017 18:25:04
avatar
1673 forum posts
730 photos

Hi all,

I will try an overlay tonight, Danny.

Did I mention "try"? ... so, wish me luck. wink

Cheers

Chris

McG 696917/11/2017 19:26:38
avatar
1673 forum posts
730 photos

Hi again,

So, I tried an overlay of the plan view as there seemed to be problem with the width of the aft fuselage... and, well... blush

It's a bit of a chaos when you try to put the two drawings on top of each other. I cleaned up the Westburg drawing as much as possible, converted it in 'red' ad used some 50% transparency.

fury_bryant-westburg_planview.jpg

As far as I can see there isn't a lot more width of the fuselage between the two. Except maybe a tiny little bit at F10 & F11 (the Westburg being slightly 'smaller'. If it is the case, then Mr Phil must have some kind of 'dimensional super-vision'.

On the other hand, if you take a look at the cowl (cylinder head) blisters, one of the two is definitely not correct.

I won't have that problem as I will be using a Hispano-Suiza engine... héhé... devil

Do you want me to 'try' a profile view as well, Danny?

Cheers

Chris

McG 696917/11/2017 20:31:54
avatar
1673 forum posts
730 photos

Hi again (bis),

I wasn't totally happy with my first overlay, so decided to have a second view.

The red Westburg drawing was a bit out of scale, so this is better (I hope).

fury_bryant-westburg_planview_02.jpg

The front of the cowl is more accurate and checking with the top wing gives a similar dimension (cfr yellow rectangle) and while F11 is still slightly narrower, I discovered that the Westburg stab is further to the right. So the Bryant fuse might be a tad too short, giving the impression of a 'fatter' back end...

But then who's the apprentice here? wink

Cheers

Chris

Geoff Sleath17/11/2017 21:31:04
avatar
2061 forum posts
116 photos

I'm not intending to join in on this project but I'm following the thread because I think the subject is a beautiful aeroplane.

In all the angst over the true scale accuracy of the fuselage (at least) I'm led to wonder if all full size examples would be identical. After all they were built before modern mass production was in full swing and, moreover, in wood, which is a natural material. Isn't it at least possible that there might be some slight variation in the shape? Were they all manufactured in the same facility? If not then it's even more likely that tiny inconsistencies might develop.

Just a thought and probably wrong.

Geoff

Percy Verance17/11/2017 21:37:53
avatar
5713 forum posts
108 photos

A fair point Geoff. Probably some variations, albeit minor.........

Once jig built welded tubular construction began to appear, there would be considerably less variation. Not sure what aircraft it would appear on first though..... Probably completely wrong but I'm thinking Bristol Bulldog?

I'm a bit drawn to this thread because it's a Dennis Bryant plan, and I've seen the Old Warden Hawker Hind in the air. Not quite the same aircraft, but still an incredibly wonderful sight and sound. 

 

 

 

 

Edited By Percy Verance on 17/11/2017 21:53:54

Danny Fenton17/11/2017 22:15:28
avatar
8395 forum posts
3407 photos

Geoff you are no doubt correct that some variation must creep in, especially over time. But I also think PV is correct, this airframe is built using a jig so they should be fairly consistant? well at least when they left the production line.

Anyway this is not really important, but still interesting, to most of us the aircraft, accurate or not, will look lovely. I am just exploring this as I think it is good to raise awareness of the process that the scale guys go through.

PS nice job Chris

Cheers

Danny

Colin Leighfield17/11/2017 22:19:00
avatar
5286 forum posts
2074 photos

Hawker used their patented method of construction using prefabricated steel tube riveted together, exactly as used later in the Hurricane. They would all have been identical. Wood was used for stringers but had no structural role in the fuselage.

McG 696918/11/2017 10:16:03
avatar
1673 forum posts
730 photos

Hi Danny et all,

I don't known if it's still of any importance but here is my profile overlay of both drawings with the Bryant one in black and the Westburg in red.

I had a lot more 'cleaning' of the surroundings and could quite easily align the trustlines.

fury_bryant-westburg_profile.jpg

The front of both look very similar except that Dennis's top wing cabanes are 'longer' and there are a few degrees more rake at the u/c on the Westburg drawing.

The aft deck of the Bryant drawing is higher on its full length and together with nearly the same at the fuse bottom, it could result in that 'bulkier' look that has been described.

Bryant's fin post also seems to be somewhat 'higher'.

It's quite funny that Westburg's drawing is showing the K1930 (SQ Commander Slatter / n°43 Sq. / Tangmere) which is the one from the Landuyt Collection based at Wevelgem Airfield here in Belgium.

fury_7.jpg

fury_3.jpg

fury_5.jpg

Cheers

Chris

Danny Fenton18/11/2017 10:45:39
avatar
8395 forum posts
3407 photos
Nice work Chris. The Bryant fin looks more like the photo, what do you think?
Cheers
Danny
McG 696918/11/2017 11:03:20
avatar
1673 forum posts
730 photos

Thank you, Danny.

The pupils should obviously always agree with their teacher, but my mum always pretended that this one was a bit of a rebel... blush

In fact, I was asking myself the same question - about the fin, not the rebel - and I did an overlay with the K1930.

fury_westburg_1930_900.jpg

Taking into consideration that the pic isn't 100% profile, the Westburg drawing is very close to a full match.

IMHO, together with the remarks concerning the top and profile view, the Westburg drawing seems more scale to me than the Bryant one.

Apologies, sir... no board erasers, please...

Cheers

Chris

Danny Fenton18/11/2017 11:17:04
avatar
8395 forum posts
3407 photos
Lol Chris
You are right it does look closer. If we can find a good plan view photo we can verify that angle too. Anybody found one?
The Westburg drawing is looking good though
One house point to Chris
Danny Fenton18/11/2017 11:18:29
avatar
8395 forum posts
3407 photos
Lol Chris
You are right it does look closer. If we can find a good plan view photo we can verify that angle too. Anybody found one?
The Westburg drawing is looking good though
One house point to Chris
kc18/11/2017 11:19:42
5234 forum posts
159 photos

I think you are taking it a bit seriously! It's what looks right that matters...

However it's worth saying that Philip Kent ( I think) did an article about working from 3 views and getting the tail length wrong - he said people measured the drawings and then made the fus sides to that length ........but when curved inwards the fus sides shortened quite a bit making the plane look out of proportion. I believe it was on the Sparrowhawk he found this. Perhaps my memory is faulty.........

I think he said it's not the PLAN that is wrong it's that people made it to the plan length not the ' developed length ' ( is that the right term?)

Edited By kc on 18/11/2017 11:23:52

Martyn K18/11/2017 11:26:07
avatar
4365 forum posts
2988 photos
Hi Chris
Excellent work. Thanks. How does the 3v westbury compare with K1930 around the cabane and upper wing location? That looks like it is different to the plan as well.

KCs point is very valid. The correct longeron length can be calculated using pythagoras using a generalisation that the rear fus sides are straight
Danny Fenton18/11/2017 11:39:38
avatar
8395 forum posts
3407 photos
Yes KC is quite right. We are getting csrried away
The curvature does indeed make a difference and the plan sides need to be slightly longer.
You really dont have to go to these lengths the model is a proven design and looks right. I think the process has merit and is why we are exploring it. Even my hero Brian Taylor enlarged tailplanes.....
Cheers
Danny
Martyn K18/11/2017 11:42:34
avatar
4365 forum posts
2988 photos
Quote. Even my hero Brian Taylor enlarged tailplanes.....

Nooooo. I am mortified
Jose L. G.18/11/2017 12:02:58
avatar
58 forum posts
5 photos

Chris

AMAZING WORK have you done with the plans.

McG 696918/11/2017 12:08:10
avatar
1673 forum posts
730 photos

Thanks Martyn,

The location of the upper wing is fine as it is in the same vertical axis in relation to the trustline.

Regarding the cabanes, it's difficult to tell as the pic isn't 'full profile' since the photographer was standing (lower than the trustline) on the ground. In fact, you obtain some kind of 'yaw perspective' accentuated by the camera's type of lens.

But lengthwise it's still ok. Items like prop, cowl panel lines, engine exhausts position, canopy window even the tail skid are very accurately represented on the Westburg drawing. For me, it's the best one of the two drawings. yes

... but then maybe Confucius should be called in... surprise

Cheers

Chris

McG 696918/11/2017 12:11:31
avatar
1673 forum posts
730 photos

Gracias también, José. wink

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!

Support Our Partners
electricwingman 2017
Slec
Expo Tools 14 July
Gliders Distribution
Overlander
Airtek Hobbies
Wings & Wheels 2018
CML
Sarik
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