I enjoy the transfer and cutting out of the parts, too.

It's just when it comes to the putting of those parts together to resemble an aircraft that it all seems to go wrong for me.....

Originally Posted by Colonel Blink

I enjoy the transfer and cutting out of the parts, too.

It's just when it comes to the putting of those parts together to resemble an aircraft that it all seems to go wrong for me.....

You are too modest Colonel; we have two lots of evidence to the contrary; Exhibit 1 - Ajax. Exhibit 2 - Gipsy.

Originally Posted by planeman

I have been working away at the Sterling Stearman PT-17 printwood scans too. I started at the beginning scan. This thing is a BEAR! I have developed a method of figuring out which scan goes with which other scans to make up a sheet, but it has taken some time. Then the scans have to be straightened and assembled. Then the tracing begins. Now the other major problem is some of the scans are so indistinct that the part cannot be made out. Almost all of the ribs have this problem. I am trying to use the very few rib outlines shown on the plan to rebuild each rib. What a nightmare! Truthfully, with the formers and the ribs drawn, almost all the other parts can be taken from the plan itself. Add to this I find my plan is not to scale. This will be cured and the parts and the plan will match and the plan will be enlarged to meet the stated wingspan. I'll post it all here. But don't hold your breath.

Planeman

Thanks Rufus!
Here's a screen clip of what the cut sheets look like.
No, the bottom sets aren't CAD drawings.
I enjoy a nice piece of art as much as Educabara and others, but when a plan cannot be used as-is, I re-draw it to my satisfaction.
Thanks go to Rufus Planeman, Al Hogal, Craig cpmcgraw, Bruce Matthews, Vintage1, and the other folks I haven't re-called for the hundreds of hours put into these plan restorations. Ive learned a lot about vector drawing from all of you.
This is what we have to work with... 31 pdf pages representing 21 (at last count) cut sheets. What the first 9 look like...

I have the original sterling kit on the shelf.
Thanks for posting the parts drawing.
One of the reasons I have not started the klit is the time and worry of drawing the parts properly.
If you could post them in pdf form when your don I would really appreciate it!
Thanks

Love the discussion about table vrs CAD. I've got 5 different CAD programs on my computer, on which I've probably spent not more than 5 hours total in at least 15 years. I spent far more time on the boards scaling up SAM Old Timers for RC conversion on paper then I have on CAD. In fact for one, a Spook 72, I spent more time with sheets of paper, a calculator, and a table of ordinates drawing up 9 different sized wing ribs. I would take a magazine article, and using various drafting instruments and techniques, scale them up to full size and build the model. I think I started doing that in High School in the early 60s, using a slip stick instead of a calculator.

Slip Stick, now your definitely showing your age. The trick to CAD programs is to insert the scanned image of the magazine plan into it, then you can scale it to any size you desire. So to speak.

George

Slip stick, would that be a slide rule perchance?

sparks

Originally Posted by sparks59

Slip stick, would that be a slide rule perchance?

sparks

No, an abacus

I also understand that they make some sort of butter from peanuts of all things....

I still have my slide rule, but I can find no use for it other than showing it to young friends to explain how we used to work.

Bulent

Actually, I still have one too (somewhere), but being in secondary school when calculators gained prominence, I never could understand why you would want to use something that always gave an answer which was approximate.....

Having said that, I still use an aviation 'whizz wheel' (like a circular slide rule) for full size aviation!

Originally Posted by rick.benjamin

This is what we have to work with... 31 pdf pages representing 21 (at last count) cut sheets. What the first 9 look like...

This is great stuff. Very exciting to see this taking shape.

Originally Posted by kkphantom

No, an abacus

Wasn't the Abacus a David Boddington design? If not, it should have been, great name for a model.

I designed a small low-winger many years ago which I named 'Virgin' - my clubmates asked 'Did you call it that because it was your first own design?'. I used to reply 'No, it was because after I test flew it I found it had no penetration'. . True!

Regards
Harry

Or it's still flying and I haven't managed to - - - - - - -

Regards Ian

Goodness gracious this thread line took a dive.....I love it !