Ryan NYP

[TheLurker]

Well, this is asking for trouble and a liberal helping of egg on the face!

Something to do while I wait for good trimming conditions for the Chiribiri.

As I said elsewhere I've wanted a Ryan NYP for a very long time now.  My Dumas Ryan M-1 was an attempt to assuage that desire, but I fear all it did was feed it. 

For the usual reasons it has to be a Peanut and I wanted the shape to be moderately accurate.  This meant those plans that rendered the fuselage aft of the wing as a simple box didn't make the cut.

So, using the Moulton Three View in the June '77 AM (thanks Bill), I've scribbled up my own.  Will it work?  Dunno.  It may turn out to be a lardy old bus with the endurance and flight profile of a house brick, but I'll have fun finding out. I'm not looking for stellar performance with this, anything more than 10 to 15s will be reckoned a success and anything like 25s will be accounted a minor miracle.

As with most of my recent projects this is likely to be a slow build despite its diminutive dimensions.  If only because I'm bound to find things that need to be rethought or even that I've drawn bits that are unbuildable.  You are allowed to laugh if (when) this happens.

I'm going for a near scale undercarriage stance - wheels in the in-flight position - and no dihedral.  My M-1 flies quite nicely with no dihedral and the 1957 Coates NYP did too so room for optimism on that front.  Some of the fine details; like the periscope, pitot tube, the wind driven dynamo for the compass and the tiny lettering on the tail will be omitted as out of my reach.

I'll start cutting wood for the fuselage some time this week. The wing will have to wait until I can get an A3 sheet printed because I can't quite fit it on an A4 sheet and I don't much like mucking about with tiled prints.

The α version of the plan is attached for your amusement, or derision, as suits.

[Spiros]

That will be an interesting built!

I loved your description though.....

Rock the board!!

[OZPAF]

That's a nicely done plan Lurk.

i hope you don't think I'm nit picking but the fin/rudder looks a little light on in area to me. I notice that the tail has been increased and I feel that the fin/rudder should match the tail increase ratio.

Good luck.

[billdennis747]

Agree re. rudder/fin
Agree no dihedral; after all it's a Lacey that you can bear to look at on a shelf. It was by Moulton in 1957 by the way. I built one and it flew with 'invisible hands on each wingtip', just like the blurb. Shame about the consecutive loops.
Bill

[TheLurker]

OZPAF> ...nicely done plan...
Ta, but as von Moltke didn't quite say, "No plan survives contact with the balsa."

OZPAF> ...tail plane...
The tail area is as the Moulton three view and, I believe, scale. No resizing by me.

OZPAF, Bill>..fin...
Yes, it does look worryingly... petite, but it has the same proportions, details below, as the one given on the Moulton plan  Not Coates, house point to Bill for spotting my deliberate mistake; yes definitely deliberate not occasioned by stupidity at all.  We know the Moulton flew OK with scale proportion tail surfaces so I'm minded to leave things as they are for the moment.  It won't be a major set back if a larger fin & rudder does turn out to be required.  However, I am expecting it to be as reluctant to turn as my M-1 and the 1957 incarnations of Mr. Moulton's plan. 

Fin height
This    ~ 45% of tail plane width
Moulton ~ 44% of tail plane width

Fin width
This    ~ 80% of tail plane width
Moulton ~ 77% of tail plane width

[TheLurker]

First wood cut today and am using some of Dusty Millar's beautiful balsa; low density, high strength. Cheap at twice the price.

Formers & strip for fuselage.

I may recut formers F1a.  They're the clamp for the UC wire and after I'd cut them it ocurred to me that it may be sensible to go for a denser bit of wood.

The next job is to make up and rough shape the "box" for the front of the fuselage. If I can't get that to work there's no point in going any further.

[TheLurker]

Today's plan was to get both "boxes" built preparatory to rough shaping.  Plans eh?  The poetical taxman had things to say about plans.  He was right, still; half way there is better than no progress at all.  The after box is built.  This one requires very little shaping, a bit of chamfering at the top and bottom and that's about it.  I'd planned to use 1/8" strip for the fillets, but I have no really light 1/8" so used 3/16" instead. No odds, almost all of it gets sanded away.

Snap No. 1 reminds me.  Artists' layout paper, 45gsm.  If you don't already use it for your home-printed templates I recommend it.  It doesn't dull the blades as quickly as standard 80gsm printer paper and less pressure is needed to cut through it so edges don't get crushed. The latter is v. handy when cutting fine slots & small pieces.

Having got the wood for the fuselage cut, other than the noseblock, I thought I'd try for a rough estimate at a likely fuselage weight. Simply to see whether or not it was going to be a, "lardy old bus".

Formers (as prev. post)   0.19g
Box No.2 (as seen)        0.23g
Box No.3 (bits)           0.33g*
Frame sticks              0.15g**
Longerons/stringer sticks 0.17g**

All runs out to 1.07g which makes me think, allowing for glue and not using all of the wood (esp. the sticks) that an unadorned fuselage weight of somewhere around 1.25g - 1.50g is probable.  For comparison my Moorhouse Comper Swift's fuselage came in at 0.93g.  Not wonderful, but not, so far, shaping up to be a boat anchor.

*I'm expecting the box to be a bit lighter when built, the paper currently stuck to the bits will be lost and there's quite a bit of wood to be sanded away.

**These are the weights for the uncut, overlong, sticks.

[TheLurker]

Box No. 3!?  Idiot.  Box No.1.  I blame the heat.

[Squirrelnet]

Very neatly done Lurk.. that is very nice wood too isn't it

[TheLurker]

Right, I can build a passable front bit for the fuselage. It looks about right when held against the plan so it'll do. See the snaps. 

Box as seen 0.49g & the nose plug opening adds 0.07g.  It may be possible to sand another one or two hundreths of a gramme out of it, but I rather think I'm going to need a bit of weight up front.

As expected Von Moltke's dictum applies to the build. First, cough, amendment. The fillets need to be 3/16" rather than 1/8" for both boxes.  If this were laser cut 1/8" might just be possible, but that leaves no wriggle room at all when shaping.

Next potential "stopper" is the motor, so that's up next.  However it's Trinity on Sat. and it's a newsletter month so won't be starting on the motor until that's out the door.

[dputt7]

   Nice work!