Ordinates

Restoration Insights: The Risks of Working from Blueprints

HughLeave a comment

Restoration Insights: The Risks of Working from Blueprints

Restoration projects…is working directly from blueprints a good idea?

A company I know is currently restoring a P-40N aircraft, and I came across several posts where they highlighted concerns about the alignment of the fuselage frames. The misalignment was approximately 1/8 inch (3.175 mm), which is quite significant. From their posts, it seems they are working directly from the blueprints.

Throughout my experience in the industry, I have encountered occasional dimensional errors in the blueprints of nearly every project I have been involved in. This recurring issue fuels my passion for my work. I strongly believe that dedicating time to meticulously developing these designs in CAD is essential for uncovering any anomalies before fabrication begins. This proactive approach not only enhances the accuracy of the final product but also ensures a smoother assembly process. However, I recognise that this level of diligence may not always be feasible due to various constraints.

For example, if you are building the fuselage frames and one of those is 3mm out of alignment, you naturally assume that it is incorrect. That may not always be the case because, as the assembly progresses, there may be factors that are as yet unclear that influence this misalignment, or it could simply be a mistake. You won’t know for sure until all the parts are assembled.

Consider for a moment the following example from the Grumman Goose Tail Wheel blueprints.

I have intentionally highlighted the revision box to indicate Revision H. This revision specifically documents the change in dimension from 6.5 inches to 6.25 inches. If we examine the other dimensions, the blueprint specifies that the centre axis for the fork should be set at a 45-degree angle. Additionally, the key setting out dimension is 5.25 inches, measured horizontally to the intersection of the vertical axis and the centre of a 1.25-inch radius.

This immediately rings an alarm bell…to achieve a 45 degree fork with the dimensions shown, you would expect that 6.5 inches is in fact correct and that in this case the 6.25 inch is not. But yet it was the only purpose in this revision to record a change to 6.25 inches.

The tilde “~” indicates that this dimension is approximate, but for this to be a revision would suggest that the actual dimension is closer to 6.25 inches than it is to 6.5 inches.

To ensure all key dimensions align with the blueprint, particularly noting that the 6.25-inch measurement is approximate, the setout for the Tailwheel Fork should follow the above depiction. However, we now have a concern: the vertical post is meant to extend to the diagonal intersection and be welded to the curved plate’s interior. As shown in Detail B, the edge of the posts is too close to the fork’s edge, while the blueprint indicates they should be positioned further inward. Additionally, the actual component, seen in the following screenshot, reveals that the heel of the fork is more bulbous than the blueprints suggest.

There was a reason for the 6.25-inch revision, though we do not know it at this time. Therefore, in order for this to be correct and meet all criteria, something other than the 6.25-inch dimension should change.

Honestly, I’m not sure what the correct answer is here. Unless I can physically get my hands on the real thing, this will likely remain a conundrum. I will retain the CAD design as it is for now, which serves my intended purpose to demonstrate the deployment parameters of the Tail Wheel and provide clarity on the assembly configuration.

I recognize that the dimensions in most blueprints are generally accurate, with only a few exceptions. When budgets and schedules are tight, it may not be practical to explore entire assemblies in CAD before fabrication. However, in cases where discrepancies are identified, I recommend examining all relevant assembly components in CAD. This will help in identifying the correct solution and understanding all influencing factors before making any changes.

Grumman Goose Project Updates

HughLeave a comment

Grumman Goose Project Updates:

Before I dive into the exciting updates about the Goose, I would like to take a moment to address the recent posts regarding the SU-31 RC project. I’ve dedicated considerable effort to this project and have now brought it to a natural pause. I’ve revamped the SU-31 page, where you can explore the latest advancements, including the availability of detailed CAD designs in both full-scale and intricate 1/16-scale models. I encourage you to take a look!

I am currently working on a series of updates to the Grumman Goose project. This will include full surface modelling and comprehensive assemblies for the Landing Gear and Engine Nacelle.

The surface panelling is being implemented in a series of carefully planned stages to effectively accommodate the significant variations in surface contours that occur along its length. To achieve optimal curvature continuity for the surface panels, I have undertaken the modelling of multiple fairing contours, each meticulously designed to ensure a seamless integration with the underlying structure. This approach not only enhances the aesthetic appeal but also ensures structural integrity, as it allows for precise adjustments that align with the dynamic shifts in the surface geometry.

The Landing Gear will be fully modelled, including detailed working mechanisms that will later be the driving parameters for a deployment simulation.

I am currently exploring various options for replicating the components as high-quality 3D prints. This initiative is part of a future project aimed at demonstrating operational criteria in a tangible, physical form. I plan to utilise advanced 3D printing techniques and materials to ensure accuracy and durability in the prototypes. Additionally, I will conduct thorough testing to assess their functionality and performance. This approach will not only enhance the visual presentation but also provide a practical, hands-on experience.

As a basic test to check the viability of the project, I 3D printed the front cover of the secondary gearbox to see how it worked out.

Part #9632 front cover. Printed on an Elegoo Centauri with 0.12 layer height using PLA+ filament. The surface was surprisingly smooth with good dimensional accuracy. Eventually, I will print all the internal gears and check operational criteria.

The engine nacelle is still very much a work in progress, which I will feature in a future post. Following the example of the SU-31 project, the Grumman Goose will also be available in a 1/16 scale version suitable for RC projects.

For reference, this is the Landing Gear Assembly Drawing #12600.

Landing Gear Deployment Positional Representations:

This drawing, created in Inventor, utilises positional representations in the assembly to illustrate the Landing Gear deployment.

Technote: 3D Printing-My Perspective #2

HughLeave a comment

Technote: 3D Printing-My Perspective #2:

In my previous article, I talked about finishes, minimal wall thickness, custom supports, and printing dowels. I explored the minimum wall thickness with respect to 3D printing options for a scaled RC aircraft, where the CAD and coordinate datasets serve as valuable resources. My preliminary investigations suggested that a minimum of 2 wall loops with a suitable infill may be the way forward.

I ventured to do some 3D prints to see what actually worked, and though my initial ideas had merit, I have found that for the wings and stabilisers, at least a single wall with a gyroid fill provides structural integrity whilst minimising weight.

In the first image above, the Gyroid fill consumes 10% volume, sufficient to fully support a thin single wall. I actually printed a second test using the more traditional rib-and-sheet construction, but for this type, the walls are too thin, as the ribs created indents on the surface and were not as strong. For the latter, I also tried 2 wall layers, but even then, the surface finish was not as good. It could be argued that it does resemble an actual real aircraft look, but this is an RC project, and the key objective is strength with minimal weight. Using a gyroid fill, we can achieve distributed support across the entire wing with no surface deformations.

My second test was to print half the fuselage with a section of wing to see how this worked out with a single wall. Although it looks just fine, there was evidence of distortion in the straightness of the fuselage, though it was surprisingly strong. The layer lines from the 3D printing followed the longitudinal axis along the fuselage, which created some obvious surface deformations. Ideally, the fuselage should therefore be printed with the layers perpendicular to the fuselage axis to achieve more exact surface contours.

The fuselage will, of course, need to be hollowed out for the engine and RC gear, which then leads to how best to manage the creation of the walls. My initial thoughts are to build this fuselage in sections with a wall thickness of 2 to 3mm printed with double wall layers and gyroid fill. That needs to be tested once I complete the internal design for fitting RC equipment and controls. The plan is to study 2 aircraft, the SU-31 and the Grumman Goose.

The SU-31 model displayed here is a surface model derived from the main assembly. Since this is a part file containing all the surfaces, I can create solid parts suitable for the 3D printing process from any combination of these surfaces without affecting the main assembly. It is crucial to handle this as a separate entity, as the primary purpose of the main assembly is to accurately represent the real aircraft.

The Grumman Goose study is still a work in progress. The fuselage lines are displaying some small misalignments, which are due to the original dimensions being in inches, accurate to 1/32″, which, for manufacturing, is fine, but any imperfections do show in the CAD model. The SU-31, by comparison, was entirely generated mathematically, which resulted in a better CAD model. I did spend considerable time on the wing fillets with micro millimetre adjustments to improve the surface curvature and continuity.

Having explored the 3D printing options, I am now ready to move to Phase 2 to determine the ideal scale for the model and thus the selection and installation of the RC equipment. The following 3-view shows the overall dimensions for reference.

Update 10 Nov 2025:

I have converted the surfaces into solid parts and subdivided them as shown below. The divisions for the fuselage are still pending until I finalise the choice of RC gear. I am still undecided on the Landing Gear; hopefully make a decision on that shortly.

Support Phase 2 Development:

To date, I have only ever built gliders with basic controls for flight…I actually designed my own glider at one stage. I have never built a powered RC aircraft, so this project is going to be a challenge.

STL, DWG, and IGES files for the completed CAD model at a 1/16 scale will be available soon. Please see the new post above for details.

I would love your support as I dive into these exciting projects! If you’re able, a small donation would mean so much—every little bit helps and makes a big difference. Thank you for considering!

Dinations Paypal preferred; PAYPAL LINK,

As usual, comments and inquiries to hughtechnotes@gmail.com

Unlock Precision with Aircraft CAD/Ordinate Data

HughLeave a comment

Unlock Precision with Aircraft CAD/Ordinate Data:

The CAD/Ordinate datasets are designed to offer detailed documentation of the dimensional information pertaining to the core profiles of various aircraft components. This includes elements such as fuselage bulkheads, cowls, vertical stabilizers, horizontal stabilizers, wings, rudders, flaps, ailerons, and elevators. Essentially, these datasets provide all the dimensional information needed to develop the main profiles for aircraft construction.

The research studies were conducted to fill in important gaps in information and to clarify unclear details. Often, data on blueprints can be difficult to read, making it necessary to record and analyze the bulkhead or rib profiles in CAD. This process helps accurately determine the correct dimensions.

The examples of ordinate dimensions above are not necessarily the worst; in fact, there are truly poor examples that exist. To tackle these issues, we should start by recording the known dimensions in Excel and making educated guesses about the worst examples. Next, we can create each profile in CAD. This CAD profile will give us a clear visual representation of any anomalies in the curvature, which can be further analyzed through curvature analysis to identify low and high spots. This process is done for every rib and bulkhead profile where we have ordinate dimensions.

The spreadsheets above are typical examples of CAD/Ordinate datasets. The first spreadsheet contains the Ordinate record for the P-38, while the second one features the Aileron sheet for the FM2. You may notice a Linear Regression analysis table included in the FM2 sheet. Initially, determining the individual profiles of the ribs or bulkheads is just the first step; we now need to assess the assembly of all these components and check for proper alignment.

Each drawn sketch profile in CAD will serve as the border for containing a surface patch.

There are two primary reasons for doing this. First, it provides us with a plane that can be converted into a working surface, which can be utilized in any CAD product. Secondly, it provides us with a tangible element that we use to check assembly cross sections at key locations for alignment checks.

For example, consider the wing of the FM2. The wing assembly has been converted into a part file, and cross-section sketches were created at various chord locations: 30%, 60%, 70%, and 80%. Each sketch utilized the “Project Cut Edges” function to generate a cross-section of each rib. As shown in the second image, the array of lines representing the rib cross-sections provides a visual aid to identify high and low spots on the wing assembly. By creating a surface plane for each rib, we were able to generate these cross sections effectively. There were a few high and low points, which were double-checked and rectified.

If we require additional verification and strive for precision, we could use Excel’s Linear Regression to generate the coordinates for a Best Fit Line and make adjustments as needed. However, this approach may be excessive since our primary goal is to clarify the original blueprint data and apply it to identify appropriate rib and bulkhead profiles within acceptable parameters.

We can also use Linear Regression to give us an overview of how the ordinate profiles align with one another and to identify any discrepancies. Typically, acceptable parameters are within +/- 0.01 inches (or 0.254 mm), as specified by the dimensions on the blueprints, which usually only provide accuracy to two decimal places. Sometimes, as was the case with the P-51 and P-38, we had key design parameters that allowed us to calculate the exact profiles for each wing.

Validating dimensional data is crucial because the actual wing construction may not always match the accepted specifications. The design specifications for the FM2 call for a NACA 23015 airfoil at the root and a NACA 23009 airfoil at the tip. You might be surprised to learn that the NACA 23009 is a modified version of the standard 23009. Nothing is therefore assumed or taken for granted.

The CAD/Ordinate datasets are the result of extensive and thorough research and analysis, often taking many months of work, sometimes around the clock. These spreadsheets include every known ordinate dimension for various aircraft, gathered not only from blueprints but also from manuals, reports, and even correspondence. The CAD/Ordinate packages also include various 3D CAD models in various formats, including 3D DWG and fully dimensioned 2D DWG. All documents provided are fully editable so you can adapt the information to your work processes.

For more details on using the Ordinate spreadsheet data for your own CAD systems, see my earlier post here: Ordinate Overview

With over 45 years of experience in structural and mechanical engineering, my expertise influences everything I do.

In summary, the purpose of the CAD/ordinate datasets is the result of intensive work and research to provide the user with correct usable data that can be utilized in any CAD system.

When you buy CAD/Ordinate datasets and Blueprint collections from me, you support my ongoing research to provide the most comprehensive and probably the most accurate dimensional information about various aircraft. This blog and my research work would not be possible without your support.

Goose Bumps!

HughLeave a comment

Goose Bumps!

The Grumman Goose project is both challenging and frustrating; it is definitely not a straightforward aircraft to work on. I have primarily focused on updating the empennage, which includes the vertical stabilizer, horizontal stabilizer, rudder, and elevator. During the development of the ordinate study, I observed discrepancies in the documented locations of various components. Let me explain what I mean.

Upon reviewing the CAD drawings on the left and comparing them with the Maintenance Manual diagram, I noticed that the level of the ribs varies by 1/16 of an inch. This discrepancy caused me immediate concern, and I began to wonder where I might have misinterpreted the Grumman drawing data. Therefore, I felt it was necessary to review and verify the information.

Initially, we do not have any reference location information on the Rudder Layout drawing. Normally, you would expect reference dimensions to the fuselage centerline or a fuselage station reference, but there are none. We do, though, have locations of the Hinges on other drawings for the Station bulkheads and Fin layout which in turn will help derive location information for the Rudder.

The first image above is the bulkhead layout at Station 36, which specifies the centre of the hinges 1, 2, 3, and 4 relative to the Fuselage Ref Line.. The second image is the bulkhead at Station 33, which shows the dimension of 65 13/16″ to the top of the Lower Rib on the Vertical stabilizer Fin.

I am looking to verify the dimensions and locations of the rudder ribs and hinges in relation to the Fuselage Reference Line. To accomplish this, we will start with the information we have and determine what additional information we need. The first image confirms that the CAD drawings for the rudder accurately depict the positions of the hinges. The second drawing further supports this; the “Top of Rib” location refers to the lower rib of the fin which includes the locations of the hinge centers. At this point, we have established the correct locations of the rudder hinges from two different sources.

Having determined the hinge locations, we know that the ribs for the rudder are offset by 5/8″ on either side of those locations, which allows us to derive the final levels noted on the Rudder Layout CAD drawing. Does this mean that the Grumman drawings, and therefore the CAD drawings, are correct while the manuals are incorrect? Yes and No…let me explain…

The first image is the Lines Diagram for the Vertical Stabilizer Fin Ribs. In the Table of Offsets, you will notice a list of dimensions from the “Root,” with the first rib specified at 10 7/8 inches. If we overlay these dimensions onto the CAD drawing, we observe a 1/16-inch discrepancy to the top of the first rib. However, all other sources, including those mentioned above and additional references not listed, such as the fuselage Lines layout, indicate that the top of the rib is correctly positioned in the CAD model (second image), contradicting the information provided in this Table of Offsets.

So what is going on?

We should take into account the revision history of the Grumman Goose development. If you examine their drawings, you’ll notice that they have made numerous revisions, some of which are labeled with letters as late in the alphabet as “R.” That indicates a significant number of changes.

I believe that various details have changed over the year, with the more prominent aspects being updated while the less prominent drawings remain unchanged. Regarding the manuals, it seems they were created early in the project, and it may have been considered too labor-intensive to update the level references. This aircraft is quite complex, and I can only imagine the effort involved in both its development and the ongoing updates to its design.

Whenever a small anomaly becomes apparent, I will make an effort to gather information from other drawings to verify the final result. This is one reason why these Odinate studies take so much time; it is crucial to ensure that the final study represents the most accurate dataset possible. If I were building a Grumman Goose replica, I would be using my datasets.

Progress Update 18th March:

A few screen shots showing the latest updates to the JRF Goose. The wing has been completely rebuilt with all dimensions verified.

Overview Ordinate Dimensional Studies

Hugh1 Comment

Overview Ordinate Dimensional Studies:

On the CAD/Blueprint resource page, I have compiled a list of Ordinate Dimensional studies for various aircraft. The purpose of these studies is to gather all known dimensional information in a format that can be easily transferred to any CAD system. Additionally, they serve as a dimensional check to verify the designer’s intent and assess the accuracy of data from different resources, including blueprints, manuals, and correspondence.

Let me give you an example:

I am currently updating the CAD/ordinate dataset for the Grumman Goose and have already identified a few anomalies in the empennage. This document includes the layout study for the elevator, and you will notice that, based on the blueprint dimensions, the trim tab is incorrectly positioned.

At first glance, it may seem that the dimension labeled “1” is incorrect, as it appears to be the catalyst that causes the trim tab to go out of alignment. However, when we consider the length of the diagonal line labeled “4,” which measures 642.07 mm (25.27 inches), we find a discrepancy with the blueprint that specifies this dimension as 25 inches. Additionally, this measurement does not align with the chord dimension for the rib labeled “2.” As it stands, the angle of the sloping line appears to match at 32 degrees for both the trim tab and the elevator.

This type of issue frequently arises when working from blueprints for any aircraft project. To address it, further research is required, which will involve cross-referencing all part and sub-assembly blueprints in the affected area, reviewing general arrangement layouts, and consulting relevant manuals. It is essential to understand the design intent in order to develop the most likely solution. I have even extracted key information from correspondence that was important for the P-51 Mustang.

Small dimensional discrepancies are common in these projects, not only due to converting inch dimensions to millimeters but also because of typographical errors on the blueprints themselves.

The screenshots of the Ordinate spreadsheets display the dimensional information for the Horizontal Stabilizer and the Rudder. Several dimensions are highlighted in red, indicating errors on the blueprints that have been corrected. The dimensions marked in gray represent the measured dimensions from the CAD model. This discrepancy arises from the inherent accuracy of the specified dimensions, which may only be precise to 1/32″. As a result, minor deviations can occur during the CAD development process. Understanding these differences requires careful consideration of all key layout dimensions and material thicknesses, as they all influence the final derived dimensions. Nothing is taken for granted.

The CAD/Ordinate datasets compile all known dimensional information from various thoroughly researched sources, providing a comprehensive collection of data. This data is presented in editable spreadsheets, fully dimensioned drawings, and 2D/3D CAD drawings and models.

Elevator Layout Solution:

I have identified a solution regarding the layout dimensions. The dimension labeled as “1” is incorrect, but it is not the primary issue. Firstly, the Trim Tab has its own drawing #12530, which indicates that the overall length of the tab is 28.75″. This measurement is incorrect; it should be 29.75″. Additionally, other dimensions are also contributing factors.

In the bottom left corner, we find the specifications for the Hinge and Torque Tube, where two dimensions are marked with a tilde underscore to indicate that they are approximate. Generally, approximate dimensions are expected to be close to the actual measurements; however, that is not the case here. By adjusting the overall length of the Trim Tab along with modifying the approximate dimensions at the hinge torque, and also ensuring proper alignment with the known trailing edge, I have arrived at a workable and accurate solution.

Tech Tip: Using the Ordinate Spreadsheets:

I often get asked this and I have written about using the Ordinate spreadsheets before. Bumping it up to a more recent post, this one; I thought I would share a quick tip.

The Ordinate data spreadsheet is on the left, while the other is an empty spreadsheet that I use to paste data for a specific frame or rib that the CAD system can access. The empty spreadsheet just sits on my desktop, which makes it accessible.

Generally, the format of the data table is set out according to the original resource, which makes it easier to cross reference and check. This is not entirely ideal for CAD access as the X, Y coordinates are in rows and not in columns. The fix for that is easy, copy the data from the spreadsheet as required, select Paste Special in the destination spreadsheet making sure to select the “Values and Formats” and the “Transpose” options. The former ensures the data format remains the same and the purpose of the Transpose function is to convert data rows to columns. This gives us the data in X, Y columns ready for insert into the CAD system.

Note the “inch” header…I am using a millimetre template in my CAD system so I have to specify the unit of measure when I select from the first table. By the way, there is a second table that has all those values converted to millimeter anyway, so we could easily use that…in this case, you would not require a header row.

In other datasets, I have developed additional data tables in the spreadsheet, where I have transposed columns for the X, Y, and Z coordinates, such as those for the P-39.

I receive a lot of feedback from users about the spreadsheets, specifically regarding the time they save on projects since they do not have to manually input data themselves.

Technote: P-47 Canopy Contour Lines

HughLeave a comment

Technote: P-47 Canopy Contour Lines:

In a previous post, I discussed a minor discrepancy at the intersection of the canopy contour lines and the fuselage contours. This discrepancy is quite small, measuring around 0.3 mm, which is generally considered an acceptable tolerance. The purpose of these CAD/Ordinate studies is to provide the most accurate dimensional record for the various aircraft currently available, so it is crucial to ensure that these measurements are correct. However we must first understand design intent and check that the canopy contour ordinates are designed to match the fuselage contours.

Depending on the aircraft manufacturer, the canopy contour lines may not align exactly with the fuselage because the canopy surface is typically offset from the fuselage surface, which is reflected in the information provided. For the P-47 you can see the ordinate points are an exact match with coincident curves from the fuselage surface therefore the tangent line is actually defined by the intersection between the canopy contours and the fuselage contours.

Initially, when I started this study, I profiled all the ordinate points for the canopy and compared this with the fuselage surface, revealing a minor discrepancy. The thing is we don’t have to fully connect all the coordinate points for the canopy, just the points above the intersection line.

First, we need to define the actual definition of this intersection on the fuselage surface which will be transposed to the canopy model. We take the vertical dimensions from the fuselage centre as defined on the canopy ordinate drawing #89F11456 and create a sketch which will be lofted to split the fuselage surface. On the second image above you will notice a number of prominent points on the upper curve profiles. These ordinates are not shown on the early P-47D drawing but are shown the on the later P-47D and P-47N ordinate layouts.

Initially, I opted for a tangent spline curve to complete the main circular profile of the fuselage bulkheads as per the ordinate drawing thinking that the relevance to the finished profile was nonessential. However when I compared the first run of the canopy and fuselage alignment studies I found that it was necessary to include those additional ordinates which are now included in the spreadsheet record.

These images show I have opted to correct the minor discrepancy by only profiling the canopy to the actual intersection line. I should note the Canopy and Fuselage are separate CAD models which means I can derive the surface from the fuselage model and manipulate it as required in the canopy model without affecting the original. For each canopy station, I projected a section thru the fuselage surface which gave me a spline to which I could add a tangent constraint when profiling the canopy lines. The images show the initial interpretation of the canopy profiles and the corrected profile in red (construction geometry omitted for clarity).

Tech Tip: if we had instead derived the station sketches from the fuselage model and then projected this in the canopy frame sketches as an outline we would not be able to add a tangent constraint. This is a limitation with Autodesk Inventor when working with splines and the workaround is to project a surface cut section as I have done above.

For each canopy station, I am only sketching the ordinates down to the intersection line with the fuselage and adding a tangent constraint to the projected fuselage profile curve. Because we split the fuselage surface we will have a point at the split that we can use in the profiling of the canopy frames.

The actual skirt for the canopy obviously overlaps the fuselage surface and therefore we will have to define the edge relative to the tangent intersection line. As mentioned before we can manipulate the fuselage surface that is derived in the canopy model which means we can trim that to suit without impacting the fuselage model.

The tricky bit is ensuring that the edge of the skirt is exactly the same dimension from any point along the intersection line and this is how I do that.

The first thing to do is create a work plane perpendicular to the intersection line and draw in a partial curve and then sweep this along the intersection line path. The reason for this being a partial curve and not a full circle is because there is a tight radius at the front edge of the canopy which may not be possible to traverse using the sweep command if this was full circle.

When this is done it is a simple exercise to trim the derived fuselage surface to obtain the skirt surface.

By creating a curved sketch and sweeping along a curved profile we ensure that at any point along this path, the distance to the resulting edge is exactly the same. A similar technique will be employed to develop the finished edge of the glass panel models.

I still have some work to do on the windscreen portion of the front canopy and then I will fully model the structural components.

P-47 Ordinate Study Update

HughLeave a comment

P-47 Ordinate Study Update

For most of this year, my primary focus has been the restoration project for the P-39 at Planes of Fame. That is still very much work in progress. At this stage, it is mainly the fabrication side of things, as the majority of controls have been drawn. The mounts for the Gunsight are currently being made. I hope to include some photographs of the installation in a later post.

The Gunsight was an extensive and challenging study…the drawing layout shown above was derived from a dozen or so blueprints and various manuals compiled together on one drawing. The circled dimensions are those verified from one or more sources.

During this time I have been doing some preliminary studies for the P-47. Over the last few weeks, the P-39 project demanded less of my time which has enabled me to further develop the ordinate study for the P-47.

The basic Layouts are developed for the Cowl, Fuselage, Empennage, Wings and Cockpit Enclosure. Still a lot of work to do on the details and resolve a number of queries.

One particular area of interest is the wings. As you can see a lot of work has been done on this layout which shows the Main Spars (shaded), Flaps and the leading and trailing edge profiles. The Aileron and Wing Tip is still a work in progress. The wing comprises 6 thickness variations of the S3 profile…15% at Sta 0 (Ctr aircraft), 14.2% at STA 74 (0.3 x Span), 12.3% at STA 123 (0.5 x Span), 10.5% at STA 172 (0.7 x Span), 9.2% at STA 222 (0.9 x Span) and 9.0% at Tip extent STA 246.

For the Main Spars we have the vertical dimensions coupled with the correct lines for the Flaps and Leading edge providing key important ordinate points that the rib airfoil profile should match. For the Airfoil ordinates I referenced documentation on the Republic S3 profile from the UIUC website and The NACA Technical Reports WRL-98 and WRL-159.

For The Horizontal Stabiliser we do have good information to develop a 2d plan layout including the dimensions for the Elevator to derive an accurate trailing edge. We lack sufficient depth information for any of the spars or ribs. Therefore, it is important to ensure we have the correct Stabiliser airfoil profiles.

The Republic blueprints list the airfoil ordinates at station 10.5 and station 83. These were recorded on spreadsheets and subsequently onto the CAD model. I found that the alignment for the spar positions and the 70% chord were slightly out. I reverse engineered the offset ordinate data to derive a Basic profile which I intend to use to further develop the intermediate ribs.

The first table above shows the recorded ordinate data for the airfoils at Sta 10.5 and 83. Working back from the offsets you can see the Basic Ordinates are similar but not exact. Therefore it seems logical to take the mean values from both tables to derive a workable basic profile which I can use later, shown in the middle column. The second table shows the adjusted ordinates for each profile. You may be asking what recognizable profile did Republic use for the stabilizer…again I do not know for sure. I have a parametric table setup for the more common NACA profiles used for other similar aircraft and none match.

The key dimensions for the profile relate to the 70% chord offset and the alignment with the front spar center. What I think is happening is the area from the leading edge to the 70% chord defines the surface for the Horizontal stabilizer and the curved trailing edge of the Elevator is essentially morphed to this line. What few vertical dimensions we have from several areas tend to match with this arrangement.

The cyan lines show the alignments at the front spar and the 70% chord for reference. The plan outline for the Elevator is drawn according to the known ordinate points. The second table above is designed to give me the airfoil offsets for any rib according to the chords derived from the CAD model…this is essentially the position of the measured 70% chord and is calculated to give me the actual chord length. All of this will be verified which means trawling through the many thousands of blueprints I have to find key offset data I can check against. Of course, I could use the Aircorps database for this but the many scans of this area are blacked out..the archive I have is much better quality.

I take nothing for granted with these studies and try to verify dimensional information from more than one source. I firmly believe that if we get the dimensional information correct everything else will fall into place.

As usual please get in touch with any technical queries or comments. hughtechnotes@gmail.com

Update 20th Dec 2024:

I have the basic geometry for the Horizontal Stabilizer and Elevator worked out…some detailed work is yet to be done on the Tip and the main Spars.

F4F/FM2 Wildcat Progress Update

HughLeave a comment

F4F/FM2 Wildcat Progress Update

The ordinate dimensional study for the f4F/FM2 Wildcat will now be ready in January. This will include dimensional information for all the rib, strut, and frame profiles fully documented in 3D CAD, 2D drawings, and Excel spreadsheets. Probably the most accurate dimensional study available.

In January I will be taking this project and the P-39 Airacobra to the next level. The plan is to fully 3D model in CAD all the primary structural components for the wings, flaps, ailerons, elevators, rudder, fuselage, empennage, cowl, and landing gear; and then produce a 3D printed scale model at either 1:15 or 1:10 scale. The F4F empennage is already partially fully 3D modeled in CAD which gets us off to a good start in the New Year.

These models will be printed on an Elegoo Saturn MSLA printer capable of producing a 0.02mm accuracy. The resin I will use will likely be PLA with a 10% mix flex resin to minimize brittleness. This is an ambitious project and will take most of the year to complete.

Many of the components are thin-walled profiles which may have to be adjusted to suit the scale of the printed model. Some testing will be done to find the minimum thickness to achieve model integrity and maintain dimensional accuracy.

This project is something I have been thinking about for a long time which is only now possible with the incredible accuracy achievable by the latest 3D printing technology. The final 3D CAD model; suitable for 3D printing; will NOT be available publicly but I am open to the idea of private sponsors.

As usual, all inquiries to hughtechnotes@gmail.com

F4F/FM2 Wildcat Canopy

HughLeave a comment

F4F/FM2 Wildcat Canopy:

I have taken a break from the wing development whilst I await more information. So I have switched my attention to resolving the Canopy layout for the F4F/FM2 and true to form I have yet another bunch of questions. I often wonder how on earth they actually managed to build this aircraft.

First of all, we have a layout drawing showing the canopy dimensions…at first glance, it would appear that this will be a straightforward task. However, this is not the case.

We have a number of key dimensions that don’t quite add up…the dimension at “1” is shown as 29.25″ and the dimensions at “2” is 29/875″ but when you compare that with the offset dimensions from the Fuselage Station locations at “3” and “4” there is absolutely no way that “1” and “2” can be correct. The depth dimension at “5” is presumably along the line that would otherwise be defined by the dimensions “1” and “2” but as those dimensions are incorrect then what is this actual dimension relating to?

So I need to figure out what is going on here and therefore I thought I should check the track locations which should provide clarity and verification.

We do have a drawing that details the track components but there are no setting out dimensions for the track relationship to the fuselage. The only other drawing that shows the track is the Structural Assembly drawing…alas that does not help either. The fuselage section above the cockpit shelf is as shown highlighted in yellow. It shows the track and a number of frames that in my opinion are very important aspects of the design but what you see is the only information we actually have. You would think that something as important as a canopy track would be critical to warrant a detailed layout showing the correct alignments and setting out points…there is nothing there! I literally sat here one day reviewing every single drawing in my archive…all 8775 of them to find useful information.

It gets even more interesting as we continue this quest.

The forward section of the canopy has no location information so there is no context as to where this actually resides in relation to the fuselage. Furthermore, although we do have the dimensions for the windshield itself there is absolutely no setout information for the side and top glass surfaces. This is again an area that will require full 3D development, similar to what I had to do with the horizontal and vertical stabilizers. However, I have run into problems with that as well. At Sation 2; the key to getting this correct; is an offset dimension (highlighted in yellow) which is noted as 2.781″ or 2.834″ depending on whether you take into account insulation….so ideally in an “as fitted” condition you have to wonder what the correct fitted dimension should be.

As you can see I have started the 3D development of the cockpit and canopy to hopefully realize pertinent information from individual part drawings and fitting details to determine the missing information and verify the setout for the canopy. This is a lot more work than I anticipated but other than just giving up on this project it is my only option.

I have also reached out to various companies and organizations to try to source more information that will help establish the key parameters I am currently missing. This can be expensive and the reason why I rely heavily on your support so that I can find the answers to these important issues.

I am very close to finalizing the ordinate/dimensional study for the FM2 so it would be a real shame to give up at this stage.

Please help fund these projects so I can find answers for you. Get in touch as usual to hughtechnotes@gmail.com