Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

wellsprop

3D Members
  • Content Count

    2,375
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

wellsprop last won the day on August 10 2014

wellsprop had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,628 Excellent

2 Followers

About wellsprop

  • Rank
    They let me design real helicopters now!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Somewhere near Yeovil

Recent Profile Visitors

8,984 profile views
  1. As a engineer in the aerospace industry (both civil and military), there isn't much profit in selling aircraft. The cost has increased massively because the cost of engineering has increased. When every component has to designed, analysed, tested, reported, qualified, manufacturer and treated - it's not surprising that a even a simple component costs a lot of money. That said, when I was working in a previous company, the customer requested an engine bolt to be delivered the other side of the world the next day. We took the part from stock and sold it for a couple of grand (for a 50mm long bolt).
  2. Well, here's a thread from the past! I have the Airfix Sea Fury, I would like to model SR661. Was there a point where SR661 wore the Temperate Scheme with yellow undersides, in addition to 5 blade prop and Sea Fury tail (from Airfix kit)? I believe the only required change is to shorten the tail hook and fill in the wing fold lines.
  3. @Pete M., you're an absolute star! Hopefully I should be able to start CAD modelling this over the weekend
  4. @bentwaters81tfw @John R I've corrected the wing root, also thinned the splitter plate (this runs the risk of not printing properly!) and I have remodelled the intake profile. So far, I have got the correct top and side profile, but I'm not sure how the actual intake itself should look... Suggestions welcomed! (I'm aware I need to add some fillets to the sides).
  5. I've managed to sort out the incorrect wing root profile, the way I've done it is quite messy, but it works... I am aware the splitter plate by the intake is too thick (1mm ~ 2 inches in 1:1), however, there is very little I can do about it due to the tolerances required for 3D printing.
  6. Filing/sanding is the same for 3D printed resin as it is for any other type of resin from my experience. So it does take longer than with plastic! Probably best to cut out the incorrect bit first. I've realised I should be able to sort out the intake where it meets the splitter plate quite easily and I can potentially do a Boolean subtract on the wing root tip to get a better profile (this avoids remodelling the wing and therefore keeps the panel lines). Work to do!
  7. I've just looked at the plans I've used, the plans are correct and show the wing root just as John R has explained - i.e. I made an omission in my model! I'm perfectly happy to be quite open with the inaccuracies within my CAD model, this capture highlights the incorrect wing root at the tip, slightly incorrect wing/fuselage join and an imperfect outer intake profile. Regarding the wing/fuselage join line, it's incredibly hard to get this accurate without comprehensive engineering drawings. The join is affected by the aerofoil profile, the wing incidence and the dihedral/anhedral. The anhedral/dihedral can be estimated from the plans, the wing incidence cannot (I'm not sure if the incidence varies along the span - one would expect the incidence to be greater at the root than the tip - this called washout), I know the aerofoil is a symmetrical NACA 0010 (modified), I am unsure how it has been modified. I created the aerofoil by writing the NACA 4 series equation in excel and imported it into CATIA using a VBA before translating, scaling and rotating the aerofoil accordingly. Playing around with the model it appears that, unfortunately, correcting the mistake on my model will require a complete redesign of the wing (which will probably upset the panel lines on both the wings and the fuselage), I'm not too keen to do that! So the final model will require some reworking by hand, until I find the motivation to redesign it all that can firmly go on the (ever-growing) "to-do" list" That said, given how many 1/48 Avro 707 kits are available, I'd suggest this is the best option hehe! And if @bentwaters81tfw incredible work on the 1/32 Mig 15 / Vulcan kitbash is anything to go by, I think this will turn out alright in capable hands
  8. I'll see what I can do, slightly concerned all the panel lines etc will fall over if I modify the wing! Fingers crossed, otherwise I might have to live with it...
  9. Both the German Sea King and Lynx will need replacing soon. The Sea King will be replaced by the NH90 (I'm not sure in what numbers), there are no firm plans for a Lynx replacement. I recall reading the German military budget is tight, hence they don't operate their Typhoons much (am I correct thinking they decreased their Typhoon order?).
  10. Environmentally friendly reheat That said, in line with the Clean Sky aims, European aircraft are gradually switching to much more environmentally friendly materials and processes - chrome plating for example, isn't being used anywhere near as much by Airbus, etc, Boeing still use plenty of chrome (at least they did when I started in the industry a few years ago).
  11. @John R, agreed, it looks like it has a very blunt nose (that's what I meant by cut-off aerofoil ). This is more or less the same angle, on the real aircraft, the wing/fuselage join curves distinctly outwards towards the wing fence (i.e. the leading edge is further back) - see my model below, the wing/fuselage join by the fence is almost straight (from this angle). I got the plans from google images! There's a couple different plans, none quite match, the 3D model is my interpretation of the plans and the aircraft. I must add (as with all my 3D designs), I'm not at all knowledgeable on the subject, I'm just playing around with CAD and getting something that looks about right!
  12. Well I wasn't expecting Germany to cancel that order! I'm wondering why they haven't opted for the Chinook with a 22t MGW, even the AW101 is a good option with an 18t MGW. I too don't see Airbus putting up the $10-20 Billion required to design a brand new helicopter of that type, without any firm promise of orders.
  13. Depends what you mean by "British designed" very, very, very few aircraft are solely designed and manufactured in a single state, sub-contracting means aircraft are designed all over the place. That said, the Lynx was primarily a UK design (with a lot of input from Aerospatiale) and the AW159 was designed in the UK (with the sub-contracting caveats), the AW101 is designed in the UK. The Hawk was primarily designed in the UK. To answer your second question, the Avro/BAe 146 was the last airliner primarily designed in the UK and it's still in service (it performs a niche role very well - what most British designs do). I'm not sure who has the Design Authority for the BAe 146 now. Possibly Airbus, following BAE SYSTEMS sale of it's civil aerospace division. On another note, brown velvet carpet in the Turbo An2 cockpit....
  14. Yes please, yes please, yes please, yes please, yes please!
  15. No worries, thanks for pointing this out, I hadn't realised. It actually looks like the nose of the aerofoil has been cut off (at the cross section where the wing joins the fuselage). Unfortunately, it's unlikely I'll be able to accurately model this without section plans and/or re-doing a lot of work - It will most likely be easiest just to sand away the area not required (as has been done for the 1/72 kits).
×
×
  • Create New...