A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Here's a silly question regarding plans



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 2nd 03, 01:19 AM
BD5ER
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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........
  #12  
Old October 3rd 03, 01:24 AM
Corrie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #13  
Old October 3rd 03, 11:05 PM
Ernest Christley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #14  
Old October 4th 03, 01:30 AM
Howard Sweeney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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



  #15  
Old October 4th 03, 01:55 AM
G.VonTorne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #16  
Old October 4th 03, 02:02 AM
G.VonTorne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


  #17  
Old October 4th 03, 02:13 AM
Aardvark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #18  
Old October 5th 03, 09:51 PM
Fred the Red Shirt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ernest Christley wrote in message m...




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
  #19  
Old October 6th 03, 11:05 PM
Ernest Christley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #20  
Old October 7th 03, 02:30 AM
Bushy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Always better to measure twice and cut once.

Peter


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fly Baby Plans Available Again Ron Wanttaja Home Built 0 August 28th 03 02:11 AM
Wanted - Long EZ and Q2 plans 1engineer Home Built 41 August 26th 03 05:31 PM
Question on Pulsejets/Ramjets??? DarylG1532 Home Built 3 August 16th 03 03:20 AM
Free aircraft plans? Gil G. Home Built 0 July 23rd 03 04:18 PM
Pitts Screw Question VTflyer Home Built 1 July 2nd 03 11:02 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.