WW1 and CNC

[wingandprop]

Originally Posted by John McKenzie

.
Certainly it look now , nothing like if any original Albatros drawing was ever used .
You miss completely , the design idea behind the "original" DIII shape by a mile , especially in the nose part ,...in your smoothed out fantasy drawing !

To my layperson's eye, Jan's averaged fuselage looks pretty close. What is it about the shape and the lines that you disagree with? Your comment that Jan "miss completely, the design idea...[and] shape by a mile" suggests there must be a big problem. What is it that you see that the layperson does not?

Matt

[wingandprop]

Originally Posted by j ferguson

It would be interesting to see how many 1:1 Albatros kits could be sold with all ribs cut, all bulkheads and the engine mounts, the spars and tail-feather pieces AND the formed skins. Not exactly a shake and bake, but certainly with a lot of the really vexing part of the work out of the way. Not to forget that the last 15% of any project takes half the time.

Originally Posted by John McKenzie

JF ....Probable answer is None ! .

You still have to make the jigs to hold the fuselage in correct positions for every operation of fitting Top Bottom & 2 sides etc.etc....in order to complete it as not distorted with empennage also correct alignment .

All longerons must have filler pieces added & shaped with the bulkheads also to have the correct bevel .....Some places at rear are double ply skin...

John may be right, but his response misses the point entirely. The question a builder would be asking is not whether you would have to build jigs or whether some hand working would be required (yes, that's true on all airplanes of this class), but whether building the jigs for the pre-cut Albatros would be easier than scratch building the same Albatros or, for that matter, another airplane that doesn't use jigs. If the answer is (as I suspect) that building the jigs for assembly of Mr. Ferguson's pre-cut airplane is much easier, i.e. less technically challenging, less expensive, and less time consuming, compared to scratch building a one off Albatros or (almost?) any other period airplane, say a Camel, an SE, or a Sands Triplane, then it might be a very appealing kit indeed. It would likely be made even easier still because the kit seller would almost certainly also sell the pre-cut jigs, as part of the kit, or give the buyer detailed instructions on how to make them himself. The Albatros's construction method really would lend itself to kit manufacture more than almost any other type.



Matt

[j ferguson]

W&P,
I think there was/is a 1/16 wood model albatros on the market which includes all of the bulkheads, ribs, and so forth and the fixture to hold the bulkheads in alignment while you build up the exterior- all lazer cut. I hadn't thought of that when I wrote the earlier comment, but of course cutting the fixture components would be easy although they would need splices if they were to be cut on a 4X8 table.

The Albatros seems a prime candidate for a pre-cut wood kit, and if the skins could be provided as well with their proper shapes, It seems not impossible that you could wind up with a "close-to-original" replica airframe without having to build all of (still would be some) the tooling for ribs and dealing with the likely challenging edge geometry of the bulkheads, or warping the skins.

I saw Sheppo's Albatros under construction a couple of years ago and would have to say that he'd met every challenge admirably. Too bad he hasn't continued to share his progress with us. But stiill, a pre-cut kit with the skins would be pretty nice, don't you think?

[wingandprop]

Originally Posted by j ferguson

I think there was/is a 1/16 wood model albatros on the market which includes all of the bulkheads, ribs, and so forth and the fixture to hold the bulkheads in alignment while you build up the exterior- all lazer cut. I hadn't thought of that when I wrote the earlier comment, but of course cutting the fixture components would be easy although they would need splices if they were to be cut on a 4X8 table.

But stiill, a pre-cut kit with the skins would be pretty nice, don't you think?

I think it would be great and I think it would be very popular with us WW1 fans. The real issue would be how much of a market exists for WW1 airplanes, even if they are incredibly accurate and easy to build? I could easily foresee a pre-formed Albatros kit being as easy to build as one of Robert Baslee's Airdrome airplanes, but even there, how many customers does Robert have each year? Would there be enough people interested in having an Albatros, even if building it was a real piece of cake, to make kits economically viable? That's the real question, and it's one that none of us have the answer to.

Matt

[John McKenzie]

If it is fantasy talking about it ,...then there are many who like to have their say .



If it is about actual building something ........Nothing will happen !

[j ferguson]

Of course it is a fantasy.

I think if someone needs a kit, he is likely to need a complete kit - engine, radiator, all of the parts, everything. There are some pretty creative guys who post on this site who are able to figure things out for themselves and maybe those guys don't need, or want a kit.

JM, I think it was more of thinking about what would be involved to kit a full size, more "original" replica and which bird would be most susceptible - fewest parts, (not counting ribs, I suppose). It would be pretty hard to beat a DR1 for simplicity, but then there's the welding.

There's also the issue of which would be a fun flier. I suspect that a DR1 would be a lot more fun than a 'tros which looks like it could be quite the truck.

In the end, it's the same problem Udo ran into, not enough people with money who want to do this.

[Dart]

I dunno...if there was a pre-cut Alby kit that required that I just put it together and epoxy I might be having an "Alabama Albatros" thread instead of an "Alabama Nieuport" one.

Particularly if it was around the price point of Robert's full scale airplanes.

On flying, I'm thinking the Albatross would be a pleasure to pilot - very stable well mannered and much easier to ground handle than a DR1.

[redbaron1917]

OK, I'll put my 2 cents in. What I believe many won't say or admit is: A WWI aircraft is affordable due to the construction methods and materials. It can be "financed" by purchasing materials as needed and when the pocket allows. I love all warbirds! Personally, if I had the time and money, I'd build a FW-190A series with a P & W R1830. I just haven't got a spare Mil to see one to completion I think a lot of us would build a Spit, Me109, etc if we had the money.

That said, Udo has lamented correctly many times, there is no money in it. We build for the love of it.

Tony

[John McKenzie]

Matt .
Respect to jigs ....This is most important part for any monocoque type ,..This include example by Pfalz DIIIetc.(cold moulded)....Roland ,same or klinker planked,.... SSW & Alb D's steamed & jointed , part full size panels .

The base plate must be flat completely , bulkhead supports correct position or adjusted so if base is not correct ,...here the offset of monocoque to jig base cause the main possibility of errors .....So , before the start of assembly of any pre-cut bulkheads , there is many possibility to build in errors .
All parts must be pre-jig drilled to allow no possibility of error...if this will occur , the preformed (etc) skin will not fit & once glued , ..there is no way to correct if it is wrong , except to make all the parts , Brackets ( for wings Tailplane etc, etc) which will fit to it ....each is made different & position to fit so it is now inside the correct dimension limits .
This will be complicated for anyone not with the natural skill & patience to keep up the checking with Square & level etc,...or have the experience of this type of construction .
Probably , in the end he will say , " Better that I should have paid a professional to make it " .
Even with the complete "Kit" , it still is not foolproof & this is necessary IF there will not be the possibility to waste all the money spent on a twisted machine .

Now for a wood /metal brackets ,Truss frame ( original structure SE5a/Camel etc) ....provided all the parts are jig drilled or by CNC , it is not necessary to have more than a couple of saw tressels for the assembly ....All may be adjusted with the tensioning of wires & use of lines , squares & levels .

A little more of a problem is the Welded fuselage where more solid jig is required to hold the parts for welding & built in distortion is the main enemy .
Experience of welding of tube structure will reduce errors proportionally .

Perhaps easier is Aerodrome /Ally tube method , which must also be aligned correctly , but wrong fit may be corrected by replace the one or two tube as required ....very small increase in time wasted or cost .
It is easy to see that this method has much appeal to first time builder who can make a few mistakes & not give the cause to give up the whole project or do Harri-Karri

For sure , it is not 100% authentic but it serve the purpose of the builder very well .....much better than a twisted & useless Alb , which maybe will have cost 4 times the price od a full size aerodrome N17.
Also , if he will build the Alb kit correct , question is ,:-will it look like the original shape or is there disappointment ???

For sure , the professional will find no problem with this kit , but also he is not the one who will buy it .

[RAF56_Ball]

Hi Tony,
Can't say I would have started my Pup(and SWMBO would not have been favorable) if I would have had to make it like original, at a net cost of close to $250,000 and 10 years of work making parts.

I was willing to do it when I saw it could be built in less than 2 years (less than one if I went real simple) for less than $40,000 and still have something that flew well and was reasonably safe (okay, so reasonable is very subjective, LOL!)