Here's a silly question regarding plans

[David Hill]

I'm building a replica of a 1924 plane. Since it's a replica, it's not
exactly an original design, but there are no plans or drawings, so I get
to make up the dimensions (based on photographs of the original). :-)

What I would like to end up with, besides a plane, is a set of plans
that would be marketable, should anyone else be foolish enough to want
to build this plane. Having never built a plane from plans, I don't
know what the standard is for documentation.

Can anyone recommend a set of plans I could buy, cheap, that would
demonstrate a reasonable standard for me to shoot for?

thanks,
--
David Hill
david at hillREMOVETHISfamily.org
Sautee-Nacoochee, GA, USA

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:38:29 GMT, David Hill
> wrote:

>What I would like to end up with, besides a plane, is a set of plans
>that would be marketable, should anyone else be foolish enough to want
>to build this plane. Having never built a plane from plans, I don't
>know what the standard is for documentation.
>
>Can anyone recommend a set of plans I could buy, cheap, that would
>demonstrate a reasonable standard for me to shoot for?

The plans for the Fly Baby are an excellent example; they sell for $65.
Grega sells Air Camper plans for $25.

Ron Wanttaja

[Rick Pellicciotti]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:38:29 GMT, David Hill
> > wrote:
>
> >What I would like to end up with, besides a plane, is a set of plans
> >that would be marketable, should anyone else be foolish enough to want
> >to build this plane. Having never built a plane from plans, I don't
> >know what the standard is for documentation.
> >
> >Can anyone recommend a set of plans I could buy, cheap, that would
> >demonstrate a reasonable standard for me to shoot for?
>
> The plans for the Fly Baby are an excellent example; they sell for $65.
> Grega sells Air Camper plans for $25.
>
> Ron Wanttaja
David,
As Ron said, these are great plans. You might also look at the Sonerai and
the Volksplane plans. There used to be an organization (NASD?) that set
some standards for plans. Does anyone know if it is still around?

The Epps 1924 is a cute airplane. It looks fairly simple and should be fun
to build and fly. Please keep us posted.

Rick Pellicciotti

[David Hill]

Thanks, guys. And I'll definitely keep y'all posted as the project
progresses.
- David

Rick Pellicciotti wrote:
> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:38:29 GMT, David Hill
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What I would like to end up with, besides a plane, is a set of plans
>>>that would be marketable, should anyone else be foolish enough to want
>>>to build this plane. Having never built a plane from plans, I don't
>>>know what the standard is for documentation.
>>>
>>>Can anyone recommend a set of plans I could buy, cheap, that would
>>>demonstrate a reasonable standard for me to shoot for?
>>
>>The plans for the Fly Baby are an excellent example; they sell for $65.
>>Grega sells Air Camper plans for $25.
>>
>>Ron Wanttaja
>
> David,
> As Ron said, these are great plans. You might also look at the Sonerai and
> the Volksplane plans. There used to be an organization (NASD?) that set
> some standards for plans. Does anyone know if it is still around?
>
> The Epps 1924 is a cute airplane. It looks fairly simple and should be fun
> to build and fly. Please keep us posted.
>
> Rick Pellicciotti
>
>


--
David Hill
david at hillREMOVETHISfamily.org
Sautee-Nacoochee, GA, USA

[BD5ER]

>Having never built a plane from plans, I don't
>know what the standard is for documentation.

There is no standard, as far as I can tell. But I think good plans have good
detail, break the project down into small units, have little ambiguity, good
organization, and a section that provides an overview of how all of the systems
and sub-parts relate to one another.

Of the above, lack of ambiguity is the most important. After al,l the reason we
buy plans is so we don't have to do all of the thinking.

>Can anyone recommend a set of plans I could buy, cheap, that would
>demonstrate a reasonable standard for me to shoot for?

The construction manual (plans) for the Quickie is/are downloadable. But use
them as an example of poor plans. Plans for the BUG glider are also online and
look pretty good. The best plans I have seen - IMHO - were for the BD-5.
Plans for the Tailwind (~$175) and the Stewart Headwind ($50) are also examples
of what I consider good plans. They aren't detailed in the sence that they
tell you every little detail, method and procedure. But they have all of the
information needed to build in easy to read and logical format - provided the
builder has the basic fabrication skills needed to work with wood, tube, and
rag.

http://www.stewartaircraft.com/main.html

http://www.finleyweb.net/default.asp?id=141 (Quickie plans)

[James R. Freeman]

The Evans VP-2 plans are on the internet and they are a good example to use.

"David Hill" > wrote in message
...
> I'm building a replica of a 1924 plane. Since it's a replica, it's not
> exactly an original design, but there are no plans or drawings, so I get
> to make up the dimensions (based on photographs of the original). :-)
>
> What I would like to end up with, besides a plane, is a set of plans
> that would be marketable, should anyone else be foolish enough to want
> to build this plane. Having never built a plane from plans, I don't
> know what the standard is for documentation.
>
> Can anyone recommend a set of plans I could buy, cheap, that would
> demonstrate a reasonable standard for me to shoot for?
>
> thanks,
> --
> David Hill
> david at hillREMOVETHISfamily.org
> Sautee-Nacoochee, GA, USA
>

[BD5ER]

>The Evans VP-2 plans are on the internet and they are a good example to use.

Do you have a working link?

http://volksplaneinfosite.homestead.com/Volksplane.html

...........no longer has them

[Ebby]

I might recommend buying a book on blueprint reading. There is a standard
that the U.S. Army Air Corps used and there are probably others. It
wouldn't make sense to reinvent the wheel. Plus looking at a couple of
existing plans would give you some ideas. I am working on a Hatz bi-plane
which is from plans. I have the CB-1 plans and the Classic plans. They are
ok but there is still a lot missing. I've also seen some plates from the
Douglas aircraft company. The smallest of parts was drawn in three views
with mucho information in the title block. They are really works of art.

Ebby
Hatz 598

[James R. Freeman]

http://24.132.87.61/drawings/drawings.htm

They are in JPEG format.


"BD5ER" > wrote in message
...
> >The Evans VP-2 plans are on the internet and they are a good example to
use.
>
> Do you have a working link?
>
> http://volksplaneinfosite.homestead.com/Volksplane.html
>
> ..........no longer has them

[Ernest Christley]

Ebby wrote:
> I might recommend buying a book on blueprint reading. There is a standard
> that the U.S. Army Air Corps used and there are probably others. It
> wouldn't make sense to reinvent the wheel. Plus looking at a couple of
> existing plans would give you some ideas. I am working on a Hatz bi-plane
> which is from plans. I have the CB-1 plans and the Classic plans. They are
> ok but there is still a lot missing. I've also seen some plates from the
> Douglas aircraft company. The smallest of parts was drawn in three views
> with mucho information in the title block. They are really works of art.
>
> Ebby
> Hatz 598
>
>

Draw your plane up in a CAD program, 3D CAD would be especially useful.
Your eventual distribution would be a lot cheaper, and there is
nothing like being able to drop an additional line to get a measurement
between point that you find particularly convenient but the original
builder didn't/couldn't include because of space limitations on paper.

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber

[BD5ER]

>Draw your plane up in a CAD program, 3D CAD would be especially useful.

I agree CAD is very useful. It might take you 3 months of fooling around to
teach yourself well enough to make it a good tool but in my case I found the
time well spent. It's kind of nice, for example, to be able to drop a
different a different rudder pedal design into the drawing and discover that
the cable will make contact with the control stick at full deflection - before
- you actually build it.

It's also usefull to be able to make an acurate full size print of a part on
your own personal printer. Sometimes it's faster to draw up a simple part in
CAD, print it, and glue it on the material then it is to lay it out in the
conventional maner. This also avoids any distortions due to copy errors if
your plans have "full size" templates.

> Your eventual distribution would be a lot cheaper,

IF - you can figure out a way to keep the files encrypted for use by the
purchaser only, and off the Internet........

[Corrie]

I'll ditto the recommendation for the VP-1, VP-2, and Fly Baby plans.
I have all three. The FlyBaby plans are more than worth the money -
they contain the entire builder's manual as well. Very well done.
You might also look at the plans for the Piel Emeraude, available from
Sylvia Littner in Canada. That's a rather more complicated aircraft.

> > Your eventual distribution would be a lot cheaper,
>
> IF - you can figure out a way to keep the files encrypted for use by the
> purchaser only, and off the Internet........

Point. Intellectual-property law is pretty precise, and you'd be
protected by a strongly worded license agreement, assuming you're
willing to pay a lawyer to enforce it if required. There's also the
Law of Karma that all but guarantees that if you post for-sale plans
on the internet in violation of the license agreement, your airplane
will turn around and hurt you. It's amazing that people who plan to
spend $10,000 building an airplane would even consider screwing the
designer - to whom they will trust their life - out of a hundred bucks
or so. Scrounging for cheap materials and parts is one thing.
Inviting Bad Joss is quite another.

Corrie

[Ernest Christley]

Corrie wrote:
> Point. Intellectual-property law is pretty precise, and you'd be
> protected by a strongly worded license agreement, assuming you're
> willing to pay a lawyer to enforce it if required. There's also the
> Law of Karma that all but guarantees that if you post for-sale plans
> on the internet in violation of the license agreement, your airplane
> will turn around and hurt you. It's amazing that people who plan to
> spend $10,000 building an airplane would even consider screwing the
> designer - to whom they will trust their life - out of a hundred bucks
> or so. Scrounging for cheap materials and parts is one thing.
> Inviting Bad Joss is quite another.
>
> Corrie

There is also the fact that no matter how good the drawings are, how
good your at reading them, or how detailed the instructions, there will
be something that just doesn't jive. Not to mention that one thing
you'll need to change. Having paid the designer his due will make
asking a question so much easier.

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber

[Howard Sweeney]

David Cress had his first flight today in his beautiful new Vision.
http://www.equix-vision.com/vnewest.htm

David reports:
"YEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAA!"
"I wanted to say that I flew it heavy today about 1735 lbs, rotated at 75
kts, Climbed out at 90 kts @ 1300fpm to 3000ft, stalled at 45 knots, slow
flight was super easy, fast flight...3000ft was at 156kts, landed at 50knots
with super ease!!! Easiest plane I have ever landed. Both landings were
flawless and smooth...so slow a true amateur could land it anytime. I am
looking forward to 8000ft test to see the 200+mph..."

I thought you might all want to wish David a big congratulations at:



Howard Sweeney

[G.VonTorne]

I just saw a report on the lower screen ticker tape on
CNN Headline News
it said an F16 has shot down a cessna because it came
within 30 miles of Pres. Bush. it didn't say where he ( Bush)
was at the time.

[G.VonTorne]

Just checked CNN.com and it says Cessna 310 was forced to land
but the ticker said plane was shot down.

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 00:55:57 GMT, (G.VonTorne)
wrote:

> I just saw a report on the lower screen ticker tape on
>CNN Headline News
> it said an F16 has shot down a cessna because it came
> within 30 miles of Pres. Bush. it didn't say where he ( Bush)
> was at the time.

[Aardvark]

G.VonTorne wrote:
> I just saw a report on the lower screen ticker tape on
> CNN Headline News
> it said an F16 has shot down a cessna because it came
> within 30 miles of Pres. Bush. it didn't say where he ( Bush)
> was at the time.
N1822Z(well thats the plane the showed in the news clip on FoxNews)
Forced to land in Waukesha, Wi.
He didn't know the Prez. was in Milwaukee



WW

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Ernest Christley > wrote in message >...
>
> >
> >
>
> Draw your plane up in a CAD program, 3D CAD would be especially useful.
> Your eventual distribution would be a lot cheaper, and there is
> nothing like being able to drop an additional line to get a measurement
> between point that you find particularly convenient but the original
> builder didn't/couldn't include because of space limitations on paper.

When the original builder is using CAD, measuring dimensions as you
indicate above is very useful. The builder is doing Computer Assisted
DESIGN, as opposed to so many who merely do computer asisted drafting.

But a cardinal rule for fabrication is to not rely on a dimension that
was determined by scaling from the drawing. You never know when the
draughtsman may have departed from the scale either when executing the
original or during revision. In particular, it is not uncommon for
revisions to be made by editing the dimentions without changing the
drawing per se.

Complete plans will have all the dimensions needed for fabrication
explicitly called out in the drawing package. If a necessary dimension
is missing then you should calculate it from the dimension that are
called out. People making plans should keep this in mind and try
to provide all the dimension needed for fabrication and to also call
them out on the drawing in a way that is useful for the person
doing the fabrication.

However, I learned standard practices for drawing and fabrication in
the nuclear industry. I appreciate that when not building reactor
vessels a more relaxed approach is appropriate and most of the plans
I have seen for sale are a good value for the price even if they
are less than complete by ASTM boiler and pressure vessel standards.

If you have to scale something for yourself off a drawing (or within
a cad model) then my advice is to be cautious and plan for a little
hand-fitting to make it right.

--

FF

[Ernest Christley]

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

> If you have to scale something for yourself off a drawing (or within
> a cad model) then my advice is to be cautious and plan for a little
> hand-fitting to make it right.
>

I was referring more to crosscheck measurements. You ever measure
something, maybe even two or three time, and just 'see' the measurement
you expect instead of what's actually there? With CAD, you can drop a
couple of extra measuments. Seeing a second measurement wrong is more
difficult. You have to be trying to screw up the third one. I like to
pull any important measurements from three points when I can. If
they're not all in agreement then I stop to figure out what's wrong.

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber

[Bushy]

Always better to measure twice and cut once.

Peter

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Ernest Christley > wrote in message >...
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> > If you have to scale something for yourself off a drawing (or within
> > a cad model) then my advice is to be cautious and plan for a little
> > hand-fitting to make it right.
> >
>
> I was referring more to crosscheck measurements. You ever measure
> something, maybe even two or three time, and just 'see' the measurement
> you expect instead of what's actually there? With CAD, you can drop a
> couple of extra measuments. Seeing a second measurement wrong is more
> difficult. You have to be trying to screw up the third one. I like to
> pull any important measurements from three points when I can. If
> they're not all in agreement then I stop to figure out what's wrong.

Again, ideally when fabricating you do not measure from the drawing and
apply the scale factor, and that is without regrad to whether you measure
with a ruler on a piece of paper or digitally within a software package.

You should use the dimensions called out on the drawing to calculate that
crosscheck measurement.

If you like, calculate it three ways and then average the answers.

;-)

--

FF

[Ernest Christley]

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> Ernest Christley > wrote in message >...
>
>>Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If you have to scale something for yourself off a drawing (or within
>>>a cad model) then my advice is to be cautious and plan for a little
>>>hand-fitting to make it right.
>>>
>>
>>I was referring more to crosscheck measurements. You ever measure
>>something, maybe even two or three time, and just 'see' the measurement
>>you expect instead of what's actually there? With CAD, you can drop a
>>couple of extra measuments. Seeing a second measurement wrong is more
>>difficult. You have to be trying to screw up the third one. I like to
>>pull any important measurements from three points when I can. If
>>they're not all in agreement then I stop to figure out what's wrong.
>
>
> Again, ideally when fabricating you do not measure from the drawing and
> apply the scale factor, and that is without regrad to whether you measure
> with a ruler on a piece of paper or digitally within a software package.
>
> You should use the dimensions called out on the drawing to calculate that
> crosscheck measurement.
>
> If you like, calculate it three ways and then average the answers.
>
> ;-)
>

Or draw it up in CAD using all the dimensions that the designer gave,
then pull a line from the two points in question. You'll get
measurement accuracy down to nano-inches in a few seconds, vs the hours
it'll take to do 3-dimensional trig through rounded curves.

Personally, I'd never drop a ruler on the plans and then attempt to
scale up by a factor of 8 or 16. The thickness of the lines are enough
to throw you way off at those scale factors.

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber