Scale Drawing for Plane Float
Bladder planes of WWII
- Lodge Ascending
- Order Descending
|
| Posted by MountainDew on Wednesday, Jan 28, 2009 12:01 AM Plans! Ha! I wish. We got a bunch of scale drawings of a C-47 on Thursday. I've spent the terminal 5 days trying to draw out what I run into in the pictures on the drawings. It'southward tough only I'm getting closer. Now I'thou at the stage where I'm tweaking it and it'south most right. Past Wednesday I should accept a decent set up of calibration drawings that we can FedEx to John for his approving. I may have 50 hours in this before I even cut one piece of aluminum or sew together one weld. The mechanics have been scratching their heads over the retractable landing gear. We have technical manuals scattered all over the shop too. I'm taking a few aeronautics classes this semester so I can ask my professors to take a look at the figures. Information technology's definetely a challenge for our little store. We think we're working on a big plane when a Cessna Caravan shows up! Mike has some experiece working on amphibs, near 15 years ago in Alaska! Harry, bless his center, just tin can't say no to work. It would be nice if he wasn't so enthusiastic. Were skilled mechanics and fabricators, simply we're non exactly "WW2 airframe specialists". Heck the but affair from that era I've seen come through our shop was a P51 landing gear strut. Anyway. Then it'southward up to the welding section (me, myself, and I) and the mechanics (Mike and Fred) to evangelize. At to the lowest degree Fred can weld a piddling, that will be prissy when information technology comes time to build the frame and skin it. Fred, Mike and I already said Harry can have the job of crating and shipping the damn things. There's probably a reason John called dozens of shops earlier Harry said "Sure! No Problem!".
|
|
| Posted by cardshark_14 on Tuesday, January 27, 2009 11:37 PM I don't usually throw my weight around, but trust me, this is not even a remotely good idea! Given my experience in the industry and my education, I wouldn't touch this problem with a 10' pole on a real warbird. If it was on a bird that was a dime a dozen, maybe...just null onetime. No fashion. Forgetting for a moment all the layout issues that others have mentioned, yous have real issues with the hydrodynamics of the step on that big of a bladder. Unless y'all have access to whatever plans Boeing and Douglas drew up and used for their respective midwar wackjob ideas, don't even call up nearly trying to reverse engineer one from pictures. Especially if you lot wait it to piece of work and not just be for static display. Nonetheless, there have been examples of large, multi-engined seaplanes with a low-mounted monoplane: The Cant Z.511: The Ha 139 Simply my
|
![My 2 cents [2c]](https://cs.finescale.com/emoticons/icon_smile_2cents.gif){kind=icon}
here...
Never trust anyone who refuses to drink domestic beer, laugh at the Three Stooges, or crank Back In Black. 
|
| Posted by MountainDew on Tuesday, Jan 27, 2009 xi:24 PM The B-17 is a few years downward the road at to the lowest degree. The one he has hasn't flown since 1951 and is a total project. He plant it at an airplane relieve yard in southern California. For the last 2 years he's been researching the project and doing the FAA ruby-red tape trip the light fantastic to find out what's required in getting it recertified when the fourth dimension comes. John said it would toll roughly $three.5 one thousand thousand to restore the aircraft to a flyable B-17 floatplane with U.Due south. Navy markings. The C-47 is going to be redone in U.South. Army markings and is also getting a complete restoration. Budget on that is $ane.8 one thousand thousand. Figure our shop volition have i,500 hours at least in (I think information technology may run much higher than that) fabricating the floats from scratch. Our fabricating rate is $135/60 minutes plus the cost of materials. It must be nice to be a history buff with money to spare. He also has a P-38 and P-51 in the final stages of restoration. Farther down the road he likewise wants to do a PBY Catalina. It'due south like modeling I judge. Except Johns stash is bigger and much more expensive. I'chiliad excited about doing my own little function. Harry (my boss) never turns down work. Which is funny considering we mainly work on single engine general aviation. Nix commercial or very large. This is going to push button our capabilities to the max. If it's cool with John I tin post pics of the floats as I build them. Have to inquire though, it's his dime and he may not desire pics of his birds all over the internet. He does have some on his MySpace page and I will ask if I can link to it here for your viewing pleasance.
|
|
| Posted by bondoman on Tuesday, Jan 27, 2009 11:13 PM Not bad photos Dew. But there is a actually really huge problem,. The successful seaplanes, which is what this really is since each float is bigger than a Curtiss Seagull or a Vought Kingfisher, take loftier wings, and fifty-fifty then frequently have their engines mounted higher still. I've wracked my encephalon and cannot find a single example of a big depression winged monoplane seaplane design, with multiple engines, that worked. Something like a Cessna thats been converted to a floatplane, or an Otter, has an engine that is relatively loftier off of the water compared to the length of takeoff, and tin survive a piffling of the wet stuff. A C-47 or God assist us a B-17 has oil cooler intakes under the cowl, leading border radiators etc. that are going to get drenched on a long takeoff. And apparently both take to have their COG shifted forward, or at least compensated for and then that they sit level on the h2o. And the Fortress has those superchargers under the nacelle, oh my. I'm sorry but in IMHO this is a bad idea.
|
|
| Posted by Lucien Harpress on Tuesday, January 27, 2009 10:47 PM I may have to look effectually for sources a scrap, but I think that the float-equipped C-47s were the largest float-planes ever built. The just other plane that could fit that title would exist the Zeppelin Staakens congenital in WWI that had floats. When the term "largest" was used, information technology may have been by weight, though, which is what gave the C-47s the border. Just FYI. That which does not kill y'all makes you stranger... -The Joker
|
![Big Smile [:D]](https://cs.finescale.com/emoticons/icon_smile_big.gif){kind=icon}
|
| Posted by B-17 Guy on Tuesday, January 27, 2009 10:36 PM I gotta admit, never new they did that to a plane that large that wasnt designed for it. Pretty cool. I besides must admit, I'thou curious to encounter how a B-17 with floats would await. But I'd MUCH rather see a model of one built every bit opposed to a existent B-17. I'd really hate to see an airworthy B-17 airframe wasted in a crash (non to mention any loss of life) because how few of them exist. To each his own, especially when there is deep pockets but I'm not for perhaps wasting a valuable piece of history on either of these aircraft.
|
|
| Posted past lineman on Tuesday, Jan 27, 2009 10:30 PM Very interesting, sounds like a fun projection to replicate.
|
|
| Float planes of WWII Posted by MountainDew on Tuesday, January 27, 2009 10:22 PM I met a customer at work concluding week who needs some custom welding washed. He owns a C-47 and wants to convert it to a float plane. Boss wants me to be the lead welder on the project and blueprint and fabricate the floats. Hither'due south a few pics of what he wants to practice. John (the customer) is down in Texas so I'll be using my modeling skils to build these floats. I'm going to have to use known dimensions on the C-47 to figure out what size the floats are. We figure they're made out of aluminum, so it's going to exist a lot of TIG welding to get this projection to completion. So we'll ship the floats to Texas and they'll be installed on the plane. If all goes well on the C-47 Johns next project is the restoration of a B-17 that will likewise be a float airplane. In early 1942 Boeing equipped several B-17's with floats as a trial for the Us Navy to accept strategic bombing capability. It looked proficient on paper but didn't work quite right then the projection was cancelled. Only as I was getting bored with this job and looking for another i a cool projection falls in my lap. Fun! Thought you aircraft modelers might enjoy these pics.
|
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you lot may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our e-mail lists. View our Privacy Policy.
Source: https://cs.finescale.com/fsm/modeling_subjects/f/2/t/109190.aspx?sortorder=desc&page=2
0 Response to "Scale Drawing for Plane Float"
Postar um comentário