Bulldogbuilder[ATTACH=CONFIG]235619[/ATTACH]Hopefully this will show the Mk II nav lamps that I have been talking about. Major credit would go to Alan Hulme who has written an article or book with this information. I wish I could add more, but do not know this info. Please enlighten the rest of us if you have such info.
BulldogbuilderNo sooner did I post my last, than I noticed that it should read 5C, not 6C. Anyway, I believe you are correct with the “Bracket” that has no individual part number. So it goes…on and on….
I did try to contact your friend (twice) but still no answer. The thought of vacuum forming has been formulating, one for cost, and mostly for weight. The lamp on the rudder is a flutter inducer, as well as ‘souvenir’.
Thanks for the info, and I shall keep trying.
Cheers,
Ed1
BulldogbuilderEd2
Any idea what the base socket or plug might be listed under? 6/??? I have been searching the web for RAF ele. parts, but nothing yet.
Ed1
BulldogbuilderEd2
Thanks for the help. I have seen the picture of the lamp base above, but find it hard to believe they would make it that way. I would envision a base with three screws with a vertical lug for the standoff arm to attach too. But I can see why your statement of vanishing bases would be true.
I may have one of the reports, will check when I get home (busy slurping G&T on Molokai) Will also try to upload some photos to this site. The ailerons are built, need one last coat of varnish and lead weights.
Ed1
BulldogbuilderOneEigthBit,
Yes please. If you would like to email me at ers f2b at gmail.com that would work great. I split the eamil so as to screw up the spamers. Thanks for the help.
cheers,
Ed
BulldogbuilderEd-2
You are a wizard, sir! The Bulldog aileron is very very similar to the Hawker in profile. The spar is a bit further forward, very close to the apex of the top surface, but centered up/down. I am guessing the radius of the tip is in the 1/2″ dia.?
The bottom seems to absolutely flat. Air-clocks, I have the R&M 1734 concerning the Hartshorn aileron. Just missing the info I am looking for. The Bulldog A.P. manual calls for NO droop, and a tight cable system. Finding info on the site you mentioned has been difficult for me. Lots of titles that go nowhere. But I shall keep researching. Ed-2 thanks for the kind words of the marathon. You are wise beyond your age.
Bulldog Mk IIa Wing:
Total area (two top panels + centre section-no ailerons: 167.3 sq.ft. Aerofoil: Bristol 1A (both upper and bottom)
Ailerons (both): 24.7
Wing chord 76″
Aileron chord 23.5″
Travel: 25^ up & down
Cheers,
Ed-1
BulldogbuilderBlldog and the Frise Aileron
Following up on the aileron questions: I built the ailerons to follow the standard full wing rib aerofoil. The new question that comes up concerns the leading edge of the aileron, and the gap created on the up aileron. The leading edge of the aileron is rather sharp which brings up the question of aileron snatch. (I do not have a drawing of the aileron rib, thus no info on the radius of the tip, only pictures) I have a copy of the Hartshorn aileron experiment which showed very little difference between the two types. I have not been able to find info from the British side, and NACA does not address the problem in a manner that fits this aileron. (NACA keeps putting the hinge point below the aileron. The picture of the Hawker aileron is a perfect example of the Bristol construction.
Ed-2: Bristol never used the Clark YH. The Bristol 1A and the Clark YH are very similar. The Bristol being a bit thinner. I could believe the Bristol was derived from the YH. The only aerofoils used on the Bulldog were the Bristol 1A, RAF 34, and RAF 35. (the latter two from the Mk III and IV). I have a copy of the wood wing used on the high altitude attempt, but do not know which airfoil it is. One day when I have nothing to make, I will research it.
So…..does anyone have info on the Hawker ailerons?
Thanks all.
Ed
David Luff’s Bulldog pg 57 shows a Hartshorn aileron drawing, with a tapering leading edge that results in three different rib profiles depending where the section is taken. Perhaps this explains the AP drawings showing odd shaped aileron ribs….
BulldogbuilderBob T.
A great endeavor. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE share any information you come up with. Thank you Walter for the extra ‘clue’.
Cheers,
Ed
BulldogbuilderWell, I tuned in to the advertisement, and was looking forward to an interesting course. What a great idea. But….ALAS!!! the ‘doctor’ opened his mouth and ruined the whole course. Mainly he spoke of the WWI aircraft made of wood and canvas.
I can see where the BBC keeps talking about “canvas” in reference to WWI airplanes, (I suspect the majority of the writers are talking air heads), but the instructor(?, or simply a mouth piece?) of this course should know better. Unfortunately everything this person says from now on will be suspect.
For those of you who seriously would like to know….the covering of WWI airplanes was/is mainly Irish Linen. I remember one story of the genesis of the “canvas” blurp is an american reporter from the early 1915-1920 era: who ate too much Spam.
BulldogbuilderIs that a radial or a rotary engine? It looks like a radial, but those who live there can tell us. Next: I have heard the reply of moving fences etc numerous times in my life, but how far do you move them? Biggleswade? The only person who can answer the question as to where were you aiming for is the pilot. Hopefully the government investigators have the sense to use the “let’s learn from this” mentality as opposed to the “lets hang ’em”. Thus the pilot tells us ‘yes, I cut it too close’ or ‘the engine missed a beat’. Aviation (amongst pilots) has always had a let’s learn attitude. At first viewing it does look close, but there is a reason that aircraft accident investigations take months to evolve. The news media “airheads” are the worst offenders.
Douglas did NOT wake up that morning and say I think I shall mangle an aircraft. However ‘pilot training-thought process’ should be included in the investigation. (no matter if it be pro or con).
And lastly; the cost of covering an aeroplane is very very expensive. One of the higher costs of a project. So be nice.
Cheers,
Ed
BulldogbuilderCarolineW,
The mounting flange for the “12” is; 3 3/4″ dia. barrel; 4 1/16″ between bolt holes on the long side, 3 15/16″ between bolt holes on the short side. It is a six bolt flange. The holes should be 15/32″.
The Wasp engine (Wasp A up to the Wasp H) took the NA Y7 thru NA Y9 carb. (By the way, Wasp = civilian model, R-1340 = military model, the civilian used a letter, the military used a number after the Wasp/ R1340 designation. There are very few anomalies in this designation, but P&W changed format a number of times) I can not wax eloquently on the Twin or Double Wasp’s. I am looking for my Stromberg book. Seems my dog may have eaten it. Will keep looking.
Ed
BulldogbuilderCarolineW,
The carb you have is not a “Y” series carb. First: NA = Stromberg, 2nd: Y=double throat w/ floats in front of and behind the throats (venturies). R=single throat. 3rd: Almost all of the Wasp engines used NA Y(letter design.) carbs.
The Wasp and Hornets used the same carbs with different jets. Ex: NA YC. The Wasp Jr.’s usually used single throat carbs (NA R(letter)). The number was used as a S.A.E. standard for the base and the venturi.
I have the SAE info if you can give me the dimensions between the mounting holes as well as the size of the throat.
So to clarify; NA-Y8C = Stromberg, double throat, SAE size 8 venturi and mounting flange, and “C” = the real minutia of the jets and horsepower etc designed for that particular installation.
Cheers,
Ed
BulldogbuilderTony T, and Sopwith:
Thanks for the information. Problem is, the Bro. Bro. Cat you link too are modern-day information.This was brought up on another thread and we are guessing 1955-60 time frame What is needed is the early WWI and ‘between the wars’ catalog. Sopwith; the ebay sale happened over 4 years ago. Still holding my breath. (well that statement leaves me open to amusing retorts)
Cheers, Ed
BulldogbuilderI tried biding on a Brown’s Brothers Aeronautical Cat. from the 1925-35 time frame. Lost out. Got in touch with the ‘kid’ who won it. Did not want to sell.
The information in this catalog is now lost on some bookshelf instead of being dispersed to the many individuals who are in need of research answers.
Ed
BulldogbuilderHopefully BA 643 will surface. I purchased a copy of R&M 1383, but to my dismay there is little information out side of the ordinates. But, the fact that this aerofoil is included
in this paper would suggest that there is a paper-study-report on aerofoils at positive incidence. I spent some time researching the R&M index, but have not found any information
that jumped out at me.
The main outcome of the R&M 1383 report is that most of the airfoils acted the same with neg. incid. and that the C.P. moves backward as you point the nose down.
Thanks to both of you two for showing interest.
Ed
Sign In
