1/10th scale Blackburn Beverley.

[MalcolmDouglasPorter]

I was browsing the above photo a few minutes ago and it seemed to me that there was an error on the No. 1 frames. I went to the workshop in my pyjamas and checked. There is a massive cock up! All the slots are in the right place, but they are shorter than the No. 2 frames (at the front end), they should be longer. How the bloody hell have I done this having measured meticulously and all that! I am really brassed off! You can see the line at the front end of L1, about 1/2 an inch in, that is the difference in length between that and the No 3 frame but has turned out too short. As these frames are buried inside the fuselage and will never be seen, I will glue on an extension. All the No. 1 frames do is to take the balsa skin through the fuselage side, they have little or no structural function, if they did, I would need to remake them.

[MalcolmDouglasPorter]

I feel an absolute prat this morning! Perhaps we shouldn't analyse things at the end of the day? It seem incongruous that I should use the words "meticulous" and "cock up in the same breath? There was a cock up, but not what I suggested last night. The No. 1 aerofoils were indeed meticulously measured, but it was the No. 2 frames that were too long! How do I do it? However, you can see from the 1st photo, the difference that the error makes as I have re-marked them. The other picture shows them in situ in the latest dry run. I have not fitted the No. 1 frames (inboard) as the joints need fettling to fit properly. I will do another dry run when all the bits have been sorted. This could be a bit delayed as I have some jobs to do around the house. This lunch time I have to take 'er indoors out to buy the Christmas Tree and do a bit of lunch blah blah. It's a sense of duty and all that?

[David Brown]

You are doing really well Douglas, we all make simple errors at times. There is so much to think about, its not like building a proven kit. Keep up the good work.

[MalcolmDouglasPorter]

Thank you Dave Brown for your encouraging words.

I did my duty today, bought the Christmas Tree, paid for lunch etc, then did a little more on the fettling this afternoon. The next piccie shows a dry run with the No 1 frames included. This dry run has shown up a few more things that need sorting out. Nothing is impossible and they will be sorted and any remedies worked out, nothing drastic, but must be addressed. One obvious things is the angle from the outer aerofoil frame to the inner frame, they do not seem to line up as I would have hoped they would and will require some fettling and the use of an adjustable bevel to get right. I will determine these angles from the main wing drawings and transfer them to this set up, it will be correct eventually. I spent months agonising over the drawings, it is amazing what you cannot see (in the drawings), and the things that show up that you couldn't expect. Some small amount of re-designing will be needed for sure! As I mentioned before, the undercarriage will keep me engrossed for a few days. Dunno when I'll get to do these things, Christmas and jobs on the house will be getting in the way!

I will also be completing the weight saving holes, but these will have to wait till other things are organised. I do not want a hole where something else needs to attach?

I am looking forward to making the front part of this section, it is about another 28 inches making this front portion of the fuselage about five feet long. The rear part of this will also be ITRO five feet, which means that the whole thing will be too long for my work bench, that is nine feet long.

[MalcolmDouglasPorter]

Been busy doing my jobs around the house, but managed to squeeze in a few small jobs on the Beverley. Not a lot to see, but a few more weight saving holes are evident, the dorsal spine has been made and I lined up the tops of the C frames, you will notice the nice straight line across the tops of the frames? It is not possible to see in this picture, but I "knocked up" a temporary assembly stand with the judicious use of some scraps of wood and a few nails, not very sophisticated but it works. Several joints and slots have been fettled to fit better. Also following the cock up with the aerofoil lengths the other day, I have had to cut the No 1 and 2 frames to line up properly. I established the correct angle across the three frames (each side) from the drawings using an adjustable bevel. The truth seems to be that there was no actual cock up, just some over long frames, now tickity boo!

I think I must get my materials ordered, or I could grind to a complete halt!

[MalcolmDouglasPorter]

Been messing about making small adjustments here and there, and made a rake of corner brackets. These will need checking for squareness and fettling as required. Going to need quite a few of these, especially longitudinally. I also made the two leading edge stiffeners shown in picture.

There are still some adjustments to make to the aerofoils, but will do this once the fuselage is glued up to provide some stability and rigidity. Once this is done, the whole thing will (hopefully) be nice and square to take some measurements for setting up the wings properly.

[Karl mander]

Malcolm

Great work, it's wonderful to see it come together. For me this is what large modelling is all about, ltrying new ideas and the willingness to have a go.

Having just finished the 1:10 bear I've learnt the following points-
1. You need a big van to move it ( it sticks out the back of my van)
2. You need somewhere to store it( the bear is currently hibernating in a kindly neighbours garage)
3. It's heavy.!

Remember there are no such thing as cock ups, they're learning experiences.

Good luck

Karl Mander

[MalcolmDouglasPorter]

Hi Karl, I have watched your video, was a bit scary at times, those low passes seemed a bit too low for my liking? It seems that I am getting my share of "learning experiences" then? I find it amazing that having been careful, that "errors" still occur.

However, for those of you who may be interested, I use some small precision tools from a very good engineer by the name of Richard Kell. My collection can be seen in the photo with a Stanley knife for scale. The small size of the squares makes them invaluable for working in those small spaces on models. The same can be said for the adjustable bevel and the memory stick is in regular use. You will also find lots of uses for the centre finder, saves a lot of bad language (sometimes).

The other picture shows the Port Side undercarriage suspension frame and the unfinished drawing of same. It really is time to get this back onto the drawing board to establish its exact position and to work out the loading points. Much has changed regarding the UC and now I must satisfy myself that it will all fit in the right place. I will need to talk to someone regarding making some undercarriage bits for me, mainly the bogeys and suspension legs, as well as the steerable front leg. Any suggestions please?

[MalcolmDouglasPorter]

I have ordered some more materials for this model, and will have to wait till they turn up before any more meaningful work can continue. I still have jobs to do around the house as well as completing the drawings for the UC. Meanwhile I made this stand for the model to work on it when the assembly starts, the Beverley is taking up too much space on the work bench. This stand is not a work of art, simply a few scraps of timber and some roofing nails, but it will perform well.

[MalcolmDouglasPorter]

This is a very exciting picture, my new stock of materials has arrived. Barring the jobs on the house and the Christmas stuff still to do, this will be converted into Beverley parts. There is sufficient here to finish off the front half frames and do much of the rear half as well, but not before I've made some progress on the undercarriage. There is also a little bit of material for the wings amongst this lot, must store this away nice and safe as it will not be needed for quite some time. The order of progress is to be finish off the front half and rear fuselage section frames, then make the tail plane and fins before progressing onto the wings, inner sections first,and then outer sections. After that little lot, probably will do the control mechanisms and electric stuff before the motors, followed by the cowlings and other odd bits like air intakes blah blah. At some point after all is tickity boo, almost 100 sq ft of balsa skin to glue on, oh joys, and a bit of glass cloth etc to finish off. I cannot put a time scale on this, but it will be a good couple of years I would think?

[stuart knowles 1611]

Karl would have it flying at East Kirkby!

All nice work Malcolm. keep plodding (and posting) on
stu k

[MalcolmDouglasPorter]

Thanks Stu,

I rather imagine that I will finish this model before I am qualified to fly it?

[Dave Hayfield]

Hi Malcolm, this BMFA/LMA problem has been with us for years, in fact my local club decided to opt out of BMFA affiliation many years ago when there were several insurance covers available to be left up to the individual member which one to use. Actually the BMFA and our insurers are the same so technically I don't see what their problem is other than the BMFA want a monopoly on club membership. The thing to think about is whether your local club field is adequate for flying this super model you are building and if not, look around Lincolnshire for a club which is not affiliated and join that. There are quite a few LMA members around your area flying large models, might be worth having a word with them.

[Rob Buckley]

Although not directly related to the build of your model, I'll answer the question.

I've ben told by both the Secretary & Chief Exectutive of the BMFA that there's no requirement for every member of a BMFA affiliated cluib to be a BMFA member for the club to be affiliated. Most BMFA affiliated clubs have the requirement in their constitution though, and the requirement is also included in the BMFA example constitution 'All members must be members of the British Model Flying Association and must be able to provide evidence of such on request.'

The providers & underwriters of the BMFA / LMA insurances haven't been the same for a few years, but the level(s) of cover are equal and fully equivalent.

As Dave says though, many club sites wouldn't be appropraite for flying somethign the size of this model.

[MalcolmDouglasPorter]

After doing a little house job, I spent most of the day tidying up the workshop and getting better organised, but found some time to cut these fuselage longerons. There are seven of them, now I just have to cut loads of joint slots in them. Why do we do this? LOL. Next step will be to make some patterns for the curved frames at the front end. I think I will join these to the longerons with some overlapping jointing pieces for extra strength.

Oh, I still have the undercarriage stuff to make, but that will be very easy now that my nocturnal planning has helped me solve the problem. Do model makers actually get any proper sleep?

[MalcolmDouglasPorter]

Does anyone know anything about this?

[Dave Berry 2911]

I think this was created and flown by Gordon Nicholls - not sure what he's doing these days.
I'm enjoying watching the progress of the Beverley - proper model building!

[stuart knowles 1611]

http://www.largemodelassociation.com/go ... -beverley/

if you search this site there is a bit more info on Gordons Bev. I saw it several times and it appeared to fly very well

[MalcolmDouglasPorter]

Thanks for that Stu.

I have had a look at the page, and the photo shows a model that seems to be very well in proportion, but there are a couple of anomalies in the description that seem to make no sense? At 13% scale the wingspan should be about 21 feet, this says that it is 18' 4" and that span would be a bit over 11% scale. In my estimation at 13% the wheels should be 5.85 inches, but he says he used 8 inch wheels, and they would be 17.7% at that size. Confusing info?

My model is a simple 10% so the sizes are very easy to work out. The wheels at 100% are 45 inches, so the model wheels will be 4.5 inches, therefore I have ordered 114 mm wheels which are the nearest to scale. At 162 feet wingspan, my model will be 194.4 inches which is 16.2 feet.

Gordon's Beverley looks very good indeed, and there is no suggestion from its appearance, that anything is out of scale. Was there a mix up with the description details from a different model?

[Dave Hayfield]

There is an interesting item in this weeks Flight International when Tom Sheppard landed a Beverley at Farnborough in 1969. Suspecting brake failure on touchdown Sheppard selected full reverse pitch and pushed in a lot of down elevator to keep the wheels on the tarmac. The Beverley's large elevator unexpectedly lifted the main wheels off the ground. The aircraft was photographed rushing down the runway like a 'fifty ton wheelbarrow' (Tom Sheppards phrase) with only its nosewheel on the ground.