Originally Posted by Capt. Midnight
Hi Ed! You may be correct. However, the file Michael sent me is titled "B-47E 3-View." Can't remember:
have you or your partners tried the Smithsonian? (Don't know if they have any better sources, but sometimes they have some apparently
reliable data.) Dave Plummer
I have all the line art we need and moving forward with design against the '56 AirAge/M.A.N. multiple view line art. What I will be using
future line art for is to audit everything that has been used for documentation. There's always a degree of accuracy that suddenly appears
amidst a drawing where 90% of it is trash :^)
Sam and I have over 750 pages of Boeing assembly and training manuals. I have not looked into these at all and won't until at least Friday.
I assume the drawing you posted will be in these manuals.
Quite literally, from what Sam was reading to me as I called out item after item, we've pretty well got all the tie breaker drawings we need
and filler material for all the unasked questions thus far.
I am working on the pylon and nacelle blade at this point. After I resolved the minimum nacelle size which would accommodate the StuMax,
I was able to leap forward using known size and weight of retracts, struts, StuMax, batteries, tires, receiver, servos, etc.
I know it seemed like I was not moving forward at much of a pace for a while. That was while all the various components were being grouped
so it would be simple as I moved forward.
Thanks for your input. You refer to the alternator at the front of the nacelle inlet.
I perhaps should take this opportunity to explain a few baseline elements of competitive flying scale modeling.
There are multiple judging protocols. For all except two, static judging is conducted with the judges sitting 15 feet away from the
model while they judge the model using documentation I provide them.
FAI and AMA 515 events place static judges at "0" feet from models. Top Gun has the craftsmanship judge up close and personal
with a model from 3 feet and the balance of the static judges at 15 ft if memory serves me correctly.
Top Gun's craftsmanship judge is a friend and an aeronautical engineer who likes B-47's even more than I do and most definately
won't cut my butt any slack... I'll have to use our mutual uncle Dave's "illustion of scale" to do well in his eyes.
If you've kept up with this thread since I started you've seen me beating on the physical size of this model for three weeks. You
watched me work my way to the smallest wing span while providing proper space for all the known sizes of components which must
go into the model.
In competitive flying scale modeling you build a model with minimum wing area (sq inches) to sustain "controlled" flight with the least
accumulative weight to perform 9 maneuvers prototypical to the 1:1 aircraft replicated.
When I first arrived on this site and started punching keys, one of the first statements was I was here because the AUW of a turbine
powered B-47 is impractical. There are weight constraints imposed by sanctioning bodies who conduct scale competition.
You have watched me work up a partial mechanical detail..."0" eye candy. I will try to explain this with fewer words than I am known for... :^)
Depending on scale ratio of a model with respect to the 1:1, not a lot is seen from 15 ft away. What is seen better be on your
documentation or it is wasted energy, effort, and unnecessary weight.
Reread that last sentence...then consider anything you place on a model entered in scale competition as extra weight if its not seen on the
1:1 from 40' to 50' from the airframe.
The larger the aircraft, the further a camera has to be from it in order to take the 4 primary photographic views of it that are provided judges
to compare to your model along with the multiple view drawings you provide.
As you move further away from the airplane to take the photos, less and less is visible. Adding unnecessary detail to a model which can not
be seen from the vantage point of a judge is unnecessary weight and unnecessary vulnerability to downgrades of your score.
I hope that description doesn't appear as a negative reply to readers. Usually there is a great deal of misunderstanding about competitive
flying scale modeling. The point of it all is to "replicate what is seen on the 1:1 from a vantage point equal to that you portray in the
documentation "you" provide judges to compare to "your" contest entry...not to create a museum scale model.
To too many this is seen as an exercise in tension without any hope of decompression...hah hah..
Truth is, its a game and intended to
be entertaining (aka, fun) when played to the "advantage" of the participants...judges and competitors alike. There-in are the seeds of
misunderstanding on the part of warm bodies standing on the "opposite side of the spectator barrier". All too often they simply do not
understand what they are looking at and consider the process boring...second cousin to watching paint dry...
That is a topic unto itself and I won't go into here. If you click this link you can read a copy of "What's Going On Here?"
and if you like what you read you can pick up the rest of the resources at:
Flight Maneuver Illustrations:
Scale Judge Guide: