Mike:
I applaud your efforts in striving for correctness. Your work on this so far is very impressive.
If FM104 wasn’t packed away and inaccessible currently, it would be such a simple task to photograph and measure the data you require.
Hopefully in the near future, we will get a new workspace, and continue her restoration. If I come across any detail photos in our archives that may help, I will be sure to post them.
Joe
FM104 Restoration Group
Mike[/QUOTE]
The first increases the height of the bracket substantially and changed slightly the angle of the nose. The second changes the bend at the bottom close to the vertical flange of former E and mucks up the cut-out at the elbow of the former E cross-sections.
Of the two, I much prefer the second. the cut-out can be managed easily where the interior vertical & horizontal lines of the former cross-sections are tangents to the fillet curve of these. But the change in the bend at the bottom needs another parameter attached to the angle difference. That would be the length of the horizontal stub before the start of the bottom bend or curve.
So, I haven’t succeeded in producing a family of drawings each defined by the single angle parameter. Can anyone else?
The conclusion otherwise is that there were separate Avro drawings for each of the handed pairs:
21 & 22/D.1649
23 & 24/D.1649
25 & 26/D.1649
27 & 28/D.1649
29 & 30/D.1649
31 & 32/D.1649
33 & 34/D.1649
35 & 36/D.1649
37 & 38/D.1649
39 & 40/D.1649
41 & 42/D.1649
Also I have not been able to find the gauge of the material for these brackets. Presumeably, it is between 14G and 18G.
I hope this is of interest.
Mike[/QUOTE]
Sign In
