Engineering data for scratch builders - what is most helpful?

[AirCorps Library]

I'm new to LSP, so I wanted to get opinions from you seasoned veterans out there!

 

I manage a website called AirCorps Library that gives digital access to original engineering drawings from WWII. The site was originally designed to cater to warbird restoration shops (which is the bread & butter of my parent company, AirCorps Aviation). However, the number of scratch builders using the site for their projects has grown so much in the past few years, that I'd like to start focusing more on the needs of the scale model community.

 

I do know that as a model builder that you don't need the tens of thousands of engineering drawings that are available for any given warbird. However, I'd like to put together some packages of information aimed at modelers, and don't want to leave out a bunch of important drawings. So, my question is this: Other than overall dimensions of an aircraft (general arrangement / 3-view), what specific areas/topics would be helpful to see from an original factory drawing?

 

My initial thoughts are as follows: wing installation, wing tip, aileron, flap assembly, empennage, horizontal and vertical stabilizer, elevator, rudder, landing gear installation, tail wheel, power plant, cowling install, instrument panel. I also thought including an original parts catalog would be helpful, as they include exploded views of most of the assemblies in an aircraft, along with the associated drawing numbers. This could help users drill down even further and find additional drawings that they needed.

 

See some example drawings below - I've got hundreds of thousands of these, and need help sifting through to find the ones that you think would be useful in a build!

 

Ester

 

[Sabrejet]

For me, especially in terms of scratch-building complete aircraft (or rare subtypes), cross-sections and accurately-dimensioned plans are hardest to find. Station diagrams are usually found in TO's etc, but rarely will you find cross-sectional views which can be used with confidence. 

[LSP_Ron]

Welcome to LSP!!!

 

We actually have a link pinned at the top this Aviation Forum for your site that we set up about a week or so ago.

 

Thanks very much for this.

 

Ron

 

 

 

[Out2gtcha]

Most welcome are those! That is the kind of stuff most of the guys around here can definitely appreciate. 

[AirCorps Library]

53 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

For me, especially in terms of scratch-building complete aircraft (or rare subtypes), cross-sections and accurately-dimensioned plans are hardest to find. Station diagrams are usually found in TO's etc, but rarely will you find cross-sectional views which can be used with confidence. 

 

I have heard that cross section views are as good as gold, especially when they are direct from the manufacturer - I'll make a note of that. A station diagram in conjunction with dimensional data seems like it would be much appreciated?

[AirCorps Library]

4 minutes ago, Jennings Heilig said:

Station diagrams are designed to give you dimensional data (very precise dimensional data).  BUT... CAVEAT, CAVEAT, CAVEAT...

 

Station diagrams are NOT, repeat NOT designed to give you accurate outlines and shapes in the vast majority of cases.  In particular, Boeing airliner station diagrams look more like cartoons than engineering drawings.  The dimensions are generally spot on accurate, but the outlines and shapes they portray are nothing remotely like the real airplanes they represent.  Also, again, CAVEAT, CAVEAT, CAVEAT - in the immortal words of Ronald Reagan: "Doveryai na proveryai" (trust but verify).  A well known model kit manufacturer has a 747 kit based on my drawings that has a fuselage with the constant diameter section 12 scale inches too large, because the Boeing 747 station diagrams had the wrong waterline figure in several places.  Going all the way back to the 747-100 and right up to the 747-8I/-8F.  It's correct in a couple of obscure places, but in the main part of the drawings, it's flat out wrong.  I didn't find that out until the tooling had already been done.  The point is, don't necessarily trust the first set of numbers you see, and if things just don't add up right, there may be a reason.

 

Actual engineering drawings showing the specific design of individual parts are of great use, but those are usually down to the individual part level, not the big structure level.  Some aircraft manufacturers have put out some amazingly accurate, detailed drawings, but the vast majority haven't.  Some have put out drawings designed specifically to aid model makers (usually for those display type models you used to see in travel agencies or corporate offices).  But I know 100% for positive sure that at least in the case of Boeing, their model drawings, while very complete and accurate for the most part, also have deliberate "errors" in them so they can know who's been using them (without authorization or licenses).  I was told that by the Boeing company historian, and I've seen it with my own eyes.

 

 

 

You are very correct - an assembly drawing is great for seeing how things fit together, but to understand exact dimensions you need to drill down to a more individualized part drawing. The engineering drawings we have are accurate enough that we use them on our restoration projects, but from what I've heard, it would be nice to use this original data to compile scale info for model builders in a way that is easier to understand, rather than making you sort through 20,000 individual drawings for the B-17 let's say

And yes, Boeing does have their own specific way of doing things. 

[brahman104]

3 hours ago, AirCorps Library said:

rather than making you sort through 20,000 individual drawings for the B-17 let's say

May have done just that for early B-17 stuff.......... 

 

In all seriousness though, thank you for taking the time and effort to ask what modellers would want in your site. I've been a member for quite a few years and the B-17 I'm building wouldn't have been possible without the drawings on your site.

 

As you said above, definitely for me is the general arrangement drawings and equipment installation. These are pure gold! Not sure if there's a way you can annotate the effectivity of drawings (perhaps in the file?) easier than going in to the individual ones and zooming in? I get that would take a lot of work but I think it might help modellers......

 

Just my thoughts, but otherwise great job!

 

 

Craig

Edited December 21, 2021 by brahman104

[Model_Monkey]

3 hours ago, AirCorps Library said:

 

I have heard that cross section views are as good as gold, especially when they are direct from the manufacturer - I'll make a note of that. A station diagram in conjunction with dimensional data seems like it would be much appreciated?

 

Yes!  I own a 3D printing company and have an active subscription to AirCorps Library.  Several of my products were designed based on plans you made available.  Thanks!

 

Cross sections are hugely appreciated.  As in appreciated times the speed of light.

And dimensional data of radios and other common equipment. 

 

In other words, if you can tell me how big it is and provide photos, I can make a 3D model of it.  For example, the models below benefited from AirCorps Library scans of factory drawings.  The Mustang upper cowl is an example of how invaluable cross sections are in getting the shape of a model right.

 

 

 

 

[LSP_K2]

Having been a designer/draftsman most of my adult life, all drawings interest me, but as several here have already stated, accurate dimensional data is probably the most valuable tool for anyone contemplating scratch building a model.

 

Without really searching your site (yet), do you have any stuff on the Hawker Typhoon?

[AirCorps Library]

13 hours ago, LSP_K2 said:

Having been a designer/draftsman most of my adult life, all drawings interest me, but as several here have already stated, accurate dimensional data is probably the most valuable tool for anyone contemplating scratch building a model.

 

Without really searching your site (yet), do you have any stuff on the Hawker Typhoon?

Hi Kevin, Sadly, no - I don't currently have any drawings for the Typhoon. Engineering data for non-US manufactured aircraft is MUCH harder to come by. We have it lucky because data (manuals and drawings) for our American manufacturers is relatively easy to come by. One of my goals for the site is to branch into including more info on Axis and Allied aircraft. But I have to be patient!

 

Ester

[AirCorps Library]

15 hours ago, Model_Monkey said:

 

Yes!  I own a 3D printing company and have an active subscription to AirCorps Library.  Several of my products were designed based on plans you made available.  Thanks!

 

Cross sections are hugely appreciated.  As in appreciated times the speed of light.

And dimensional data of radios and other common equipment. 

 

In other words, if you can tell me how big it is and provide photos, I can make a 3D model of it.  For example, the models below benefited from AirCorps Library scans of factory drawings.  The Mustang upper cowl is an example of how invaluable cross sections are in getting the shape of a model right.

 

 

 

I'm so happy that the drawings on the site are of use to you!

Combining the information on larger assembly drawings with the dimensions on more specific part drawings seems to be the way for me to go.

 

I have also had the suggestion that including photos from our restoration projects would be invaluable. Having the engineering drawings in addition to photos of the built components/assemblies as they are installed on the aircraft would give the most well rounded picture. Plus I know you builders love to see original photos!!

 

Ester

[Sabrejet]

20 hours ago, AirCorps Library said:

 

I have heard that cross section views are as good as gold, especially when they are direct from the manufacturer - I'll make a note of that. A station diagram in conjunction with dimensional data seems like it would be much appreciated?

Yes- station diagram + cross-sections will give an accurate basis to fill in the gaps! In particular, I have NAA drawings of the F-86A tail area but no accurate cross-sections in the same location. Not sure the 'Columbus' collection would cover the F-86A but worth asking

[RLWP]

16 hours ago, Model_Monkey said:

And dimensional data of radios and other common equipment. 

 

This is a good point. For my various scratchbuilds and modification projects I have spent way, way more time looking for decent images or drawings of radios, reconnaissance cameras, wheels, air pumps and so on than for detail drawings of the actual airframes

 

Richard

[AirCorps Library]

1 hour ago, Sabrejet said:

Yes- station diagram + cross-sections will give an accurate basis to fill in the gaps! In particular, I have NAA drawings of the F-86A tail area but no accurate cross-sections in the same location. Not sure the 'Columbus' collection would cover the F-86A but worth asking

 

To date, I have only found a handful of drawings that relate to the F-86 in the Ken Jungeberg collection. It seems to follow a pattern that when Boeing took what they wanted from the archive at Columbus, they were concerned with the aircraft that were still in service (or most recently in service) rather than the WWII stuff. In a similar fashion, I have some info on the T-28, but the bulk of the drawings are for the P-5, B-25, P-82, and T-6.

 

Ester

[Landrotten Highlander]

I am particularly interested in the development planes - experimental craft, or production craft adapted for specific tests.  Any info on this type of knowledge?