Warbird Information Exchange

Hey guys I am new to this site and just loving it. I dont work on real aircraft but usually models and can be anywhere from 1/6th scale to full scale. a couple recent ones is a P-51 for the new Ft. Meyers airport terminal and the full sized B-24 for the Movie Unbroken.

What I have always wanted to do was a full scale Wildcat in 3D as it was when built and to do a 1/3 scale Wildcat as close to possible as the full scale but keep it flyable.

I am subbed at AirCorps Aviation site but having some problems was wondering if someone can help me with. I am trying to get decent dimensions for the fuselage stations but their drawings that I can find show everything starting from station 2 and nothing really forward of that. I am also trying to find all the fuselage bulkheads but cant seem to find any with dimensions and when I try to go off ref drawings from other sites the formers are way off and I get a lumpy loft.

can anyone help me with fuselage assy? the wing and tail feathers are fairly easy for me but the fuselage is driving me nuts. right now I am working on a few parts to get used to working with factory drawings as I am new to all this so will be drawing up a lot of parts for my 3D model in case anyone needs something I am using solidworks 2016 and because of work only doing a few here and there but i will jump around and do requests if needed as long as the drawings are good and legible. I just did the rudder pedal support part 8766 and abt to work on the main gear parts starting with the gearbox for it.

Joseph: The first thing is to make sure that you are using the correct drawing for the FM-2. There is a Type/Version/Application block on each drawing. If the FM-2 is not listed, or it's not shown to be for all aircraft, then it's not the correct drawing. As to anything forward of Station 2, that's probably going to be engine installation drawings, as I suspect Sta 2 is the firewall. As to dimensions, it may take some backwards detective work. Typically, unless the frame is a single piece unit, you will have to derive the the IML dimensions from the frame assembly drawing and then add the skin thickness to arrive at an OML dimension. More modern designs, such as the F-16 have OML data books that give the precise information without having to delve into the detailed drawings. My suggestion is to find all the drawings related to Sta 2, and then you should be able to put together all the necessary dimensions.

I forgot, there will also be a block that has a parts list that shows what parts are required to make that assembly. It may take some serious digging to find them all tho.

Have you ever thought about building a full scale Horten 229? We could even find a couple Turbomecca jet engies to put in it and make it taxiable. That would be worth some money.

thanks for the help

and yes have thought about a 229 I have plans for one that was used in the disc channels documentary on it the guy that drew them up spent 20 yrs researching the info. even though its only for a flying model might do it full scale sometime for museum piece

thats what I do a lot of is models etc you can see some my work at my website Http://www.proflooney.net

Here is my rudder pedal drawing (want to test my ability to post pics)

Ok that worked so here is my problem.

I am working on my landing gear box and most everything is going good but for the last fillets I need to place. I am showing 2 of them at the .25 inch the rest is at but they don't match the drawings as far as looks wise and there is no dimensions for them. now I just guessed at the straight lines off the outer edge trying to figure it out. I am sure it doesn't really matter as long as the cover is shaped the same but I would like to get it right. does anyone have any suggestions or see something I am missing?

Also am I correct in Assuming the bore dims that show 2 different dimensions are the tolerance?

I used a suggestion and overlayed the factory drawings on my drawings and it showed me how they got their fillets so I solved that problem at least

Joseph: You have two sets of bore dimensions. Look at Sect B-B and you will see that there is a bore from the front side of the case and an additional bore from the back side, that is different dimensions. It looks like is designed with two different bearings back to back with a thin web between them for setting maximum depth of the bearing cage.

On the fillets, often there will be a note somewhere on the drawing that fillets are typical, so unless it looks wildly different, or is marked different, you can assume the same fillet radius. In this drawing, the radii are typically .250".

Isn't it fun trying to bring some of these old drawings into CAD?

Yes I love it having a blast drawing but sometimes cussing as I try to figure them out. see in my folders I do it really nice I have a folder with part name and desc. then my dimensioned drawings I drew in solidworks then a part file then a rendering of the part. I will do that for each part I do so theres verification with the original plus then we have the opriginal drawings accurately redrawn in cad so later a complete set of redrawn factory drawings will be available.

I just need to get the drawings on my puter to make my life easier and hopefully cleaner copies of some stuff out there

oh and thanks cvair I thought the two dimensions shown were the tolerance min and max

Joseph: They are giving the bore limitations, but not in current GD&T formats. The one is listed as (1.3754/1.3748 Dia) in current listings could be listed as 1.3750 +.0004 -.0002, where 1.3750 would be considered the target dimension. Different way of doing things based on the designer's preference and what is today's drawing standards. The reason that I mentioned two borings, is that you have both visible and hidden lines shown in that blown up section of the view. You have to look at section cut B-B to gather all the necessary information for that area of the casing.

It's sometimes a challenge to decipher some of the various drawing styles and standards from that time period. Work with them a while and it becomes much easier and you start understanding where to look to find what appears to be missing information. It's not as bad with these drawings, but some I used to work with had cuts and views spread out over as much as 36 pages of 24x36 sheets. View and section location notes were great until someone changed up a page and did not update the notes throughout the drawing.

BTW, I don't know how much board/tube time you have, but you will find that as you go, you will speed up and do things without even thinking about it and your output will be greater. I know mine had several jumps over the years. My first was when I had about 3-400 hours on the board with pencil and scale. The second was with about 700 hours on the tube. The last year I was on the tube, I could draw, and hold a conversation at the same time, and produce updated drawings and BOMs at a pretty good clip.

well im 54 and been drafting since high school am also a journeyman millwright so been looking at drawings a while as well but aircraft stuff is a whole dif ballgame. I can draw up a set of plans and loft a wing in a heartbeat for radio control but trying to be accurate drawing actual parts precisely so they can be used to make restoration parts and to have accurate set of new factory drawings, I am a little OCD and until I can understand these drawings better I will be banging my head on the wall a lot lol. I am on abt my 4th part tonight and none of them totally finished yet as I got frustrated so just grabbed another part so as to hopefully get used to reading them better. I found one drawing that will take me prob a couple gals of rum to figure out

it has a couple U shaped parts and that angled part and the angled piece they drew in sort of a shortened cutaway perspective view so how I am supposed to get the correct shape is beyond me. as you can prob tell I am working on the main landing gear assembly first as once I have that with all the weird dims etc I might have a clue for the rest of the drawings

LOL.... that's actually a combined assembly/fabrication drawing. There are around 9 separate parts on that drawing.

If you look at the view just above and to the left of the 11026-1 set of numbers, there are flags that designate the -3,-4,-5L,-5R and -6 individual parts. By looking at the table, you should be able to decipher what each part is made of and it's approximate size and the quantity needed. You will find that the -5R and -5L are probably mirrored parts, with the folds going opposite directions. Look around and now find the same designator, ( -number in a circle) and from that arrow, you should be able to find the individual part and come up with it's dimensions and profile. The trick is learning to separate out the individual parts. The particular drawing you posted, I can't enlarge on my computer, so I can't read some of the info. One trick you can do for these complicated drawings is print a couple of copies and manually color the individual parts on the printout to get a grasp of them. Until you get a decent hold on reading this style drawing, cheat and make a drawing of each individual part. You can then assemble them into a single assembly drawing in Solidworks later. Pm me with your direct email and I'll send you a pdf of a part that I am working on, that is a dead simple version of this style drawing. It has a total of 5 pieces...two part numbers and makes an assembly.

Also, for some quick help, find the part in the IPB and print the page showing it. Often, the isometric drawings for that book are pretty good and can give you much better idea of what the assembly should look like and will make it easier to try and draw.