Fauvel AV-36 and 361 project - comment page

Discussion in 'Soaring' started by Hot Wings, Jul 7, 2019.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Jul 7, 2019 #1

    Hot Wings

    Hot Wings

    Hot Wings

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    6,208
    Likes Received:
    2,178
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    Foundationer likes this.
  2. Jul 8, 2019 #2

    plncraze

    plncraze

    plncraze

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    May 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,528
    Likes Received:
    315
    That is wonderful! It is nice to see someone is going to keep some of Fauvel's work alive. When you see the planes and their plans which have disappeared into oblivion it is very sad. Thank you for sharing!
     
  3. Jul 8, 2019 #3

    Dennis K

    Dennis K

    Dennis K

    Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2014
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH USA
    In 1970 while assigned to AFCRL Cloud Physics Branch at Hanscom Field a man approached me after seeing a model I had built with a plan to build an AV-36 as a woodworking project for his son. I thought Ihad died and goen to heaven but the kid wasn't interested so the plan fell through. All I have left is the Falconar Aircraft Ltd. brochure.
     
  4. Jul 8, 2019 #4

    Foundationer

    Foundationer

    Foundationer

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2016
    Messages:
    203
    Likes Received:
    94
    Location:
    London
    The Fauvel gliders are beautiful looking things! What cad package are you building it in?

    Edit: Solidworks. Nice.

    I'm quite interested in how you're going to organise the files / parts. Is that bulkhead one part that will then fit into an assembly?
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2019
    billyvray likes this.
  5. Jul 8, 2019 #5

    billyvray

    billyvray

    billyvray

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2005
    Messages:
    699
    Likes Received:
    217
    Location:
    Newnan, GA
    same question. Is each little block or piece of wood a separate part file, then made into the one assembly for the bulkhead, or did you just build that bulkhead as one part ? Always a consideration with multi-part assemblies.
     
  6. Jul 8, 2019 #6

    Hot Wings

    Hot Wings

    Hot Wings

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    6,208
    Likes Received:
    2,178
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains

    For parts like this bulkhead I like to build it as one part of separate bodies. For the average homebuilder this is all that is needed to generate a drawing for the plans. I can still pull out each little stick as a separate part file to generate CNC/G code files.

    I haven't yet started to assign part numbers, but that will be (have to be) done soon. This one will probably be FU36-2ASM made of parts FU36-2/1.....#/Arevision FU361-1/1B would be the plywood diaphragm for the number one fuselage bulkhead for an AV-361 - second revision.

    This is going to be an iterative process. A lot of the dimensions needed are either no longer readable, or were never included. The drawing and manual of this bulkhead for example doesn't specify if the dimensions are from the back side or the front. Since it is mounted at an angle to the longerons it does make a difference.
    I feel for the previous builders that made these and just assumed that the side cuts were orthogonal*, or used the wrong side as the reference.

    For this bulkhead (#2 in the plans) I'll probably just fill in the longeron notches with a note to the builder to cut the notches at X angle after the glue dries.

    * One does need to read and understand the complete set of plans before cutting parts. This kind of mistake can't be blamed entirely on the plans. Fortunately for me electrons cost a whole lot less than Spruce.
     
    Peter Mican likes this.
  7. Jul 8, 2019 #7

    Foundationer

    Foundationer

    Foundationer

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2016
    Messages:
    203
    Likes Received:
    94
    Location:
    London
    I'm impressed! I can make individual parts, and I can make something that looks like an outer mould line, and they're pretty good... But I've never figured out the process to take the OML and fill it with individual parts that I can then pull out and get drawings of.
     
  8. Jul 8, 2019 #8

    Hot Wings

    Hot Wings

    Hot Wings

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    6,208
    Likes Received:
    2,178
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    Don't be. For as long as I've been at this I should be much better, and quicker. SW is one of those programs that an individual will probably never master. There is just too much there. Fortunately in the modern world we have YouTube videos to show the way - if you can find one that doesn't take all day to get the message across. Just knowing that SW can do something is often half of the solution.

    Basic process used here is to uncheck the "merge" box. Then each body can be "Insert into new part". This is then the child part and will change when you change the parent in the original part. Child parts can be modified parametricly and can in turn spawn their own children.
     
  9. Jul 8, 2019 #9

    Foundationer

    Foundationer

    Foundationer

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2016
    Messages:
    203
    Likes Received:
    94
    Location:
    London
    'uncheck the merge box' you say? I think you might have just taught me the most important SW lesson in ages. I have a sudden suspicion that wall I hit trying to do anything at all complicated has just been knocked down! Thank you!

    I guess it's an interesting thing about YouTube - you can learn a lot fast but it's quite easy to miss something extremely important and if you don't know you missed it it's very hard to work it out.
     
  10. Jul 18, 2019 #10

    Foundationer

    Foundationer

    Foundationer

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2016
    Messages:
    203
    Likes Received:
    94
    Location:
    London
    Update looks good! Did you make the man sitting in your fuselage or find it somewhere?
     
  11. Jul 18, 2019 #11

    Hot Wings

    Hot Wings

    Hot Wings

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    6,208
    Likes Received:
    2,178
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    I got it from another HBA member several years ago. He is 6 foot and 220 lbs. The fuselage forms are from the 361 which is already a bit wider than the original 36 so this is going to be a snug cockpit for a standard American.
     
  12. Aug 2, 2019 #12

    Hot Wings

    Hot Wings

    Hot Wings

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    6,208
    Likes Received:
    2,178
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    I have a question, or sort of a poll, to help me decide which way to go.

    I'd like to make the AV-36, AV-361, AV-45 and my future version of the AV-48 as modular as possible. In other words if someone has an AV-36 wing and wants to build the wider AV-361 fuselage, or even put an AV-45 fuselage, with wheels rather than a skid, under an AV-36 wing they can marry the 2 components with very little modification.

    I'm at the stage where I've been looking at the AV-45 drawings and even though the 45 and 36 share the same airfoil the AV-45 uses a wider, but thinner, spar cap lamination. This makes the AV-45 spar a bit lighter and less work due the the reduced number of laminations. Modifying an Existing AV-36/361 fuselage to mate to the thicker AV-45 spar would be quite simple. The longer AV-45* spar can be cut at the tip for the shorter span AV-36 - the center section dimensions are the same regardless of the span

    The AV-45 also incorporates a removable wing - 3 pins and the controls. The added length of the motorized fuselage made this necessary for trailer on the roads.

    I'm leaning heavily to just putting the thicker AV-45 spar into CAD along with the needed modifications to adapt it to an existing AV-36 or AV-361 fuselage. Both the front and aft ribs will be different than the AV-36 due to the AV-45 spar also being moved slightly forward. Neither the front or aft face of the spar is at the same chord station.

    So my question:
    Would there be any reason to continue to offer original AV-36 wing plans with the narrow spar with thick spar caps?


    *There are actually 3 different wing spans for the prototype AV-45s. They all have the same tip chord.
     
    Peter Mican likes this.
  13. Aug 2, 2019 #13

    TFF

    TFF

    TFF

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,431
    Likes Received:
    3,171
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    I would concentrate on one cool workable design that you can be the pied piper. Your enthusiasm is what is going to sell it. Archive the others as time permits after the first.
     
  14. Aug 2, 2019 #14

    opcod

    opcod

    opcod

    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    Instead of a full wood design, you can go for a carbon version as the Choucas. Perfect design and yhe only 2 place flyingwing flying currently.
     
  15. Aug 2, 2019 #15

    Urquiola

    Urquiola

    Urquiola

    Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2013
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Madrid, Spain
    About the Fauvel AV 36 and AV 22, you may like the wing plan form modification shown in page 461 and 462 from a book by K Nickel and M Wohlfahrt: 'Tailess aircraft in theory and practice' I was told about this book by an Smithsonian Institution curator. Salut + Fauvel AV 36 & AV 32 -Tailess Aircraft -Nickel & Wolfahrt.jpg Fauvel AV 22 -Tailless Aircraft in therory and practice -K Nickel & M Wohlfahrt.jpg
     
  16. Aug 2, 2019 #16

    Hot Wings

    Hot Wings

    Hot Wings

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    6,208
    Likes Received:
    2,178
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    A composite version is in the future. For now I'd like to just get the original, and proven, wood versions into CAD and the plans back on the market.
    The easy way is to just reproduce the original AV-36 drawings with no modifications other than changing a few minor dimensions to gain CAD accuracy. But the AV-361 and AV-45 incorporate changes that were found to improve the design. It seems to me it would be a good idea to take the best, and proven, parts of all of the versions?

    Thanks for the reminder! I have the book but it's been a few years since I read it and had forgotten this part.
     
    Peter Mican likes this.
  17. Aug 3, 2019 #17

    addicted2climbing

    addicted2climbing

    addicted2climbing

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2012
    Messages:
    929
    Likes Received:
    258
    Location:
    Glendale, CA
    I would focus on one version. I could be mistaken, but there are not too many of these flying anyhow so the chances someone will want to add an existing fuselage to a new wing would likely be slim yet a lot of work to make happen. Maybe put it on the back burner and do it when someone requests it. Now if you already had a fuselage in your possession to design around than I would say yes its worth the time.

    For example, when I did the Skylite fuselage in Solidworks, since I was designing with a CNC coped tube kit in mind, I had to deviate from the plans to work around this other form of manufacturing. Yet I will still offer the original version for those wanting to build it flat on the table and not wanting the CNC tube kit. The CNC kit is built in a 3D plane and it will nearly self jig with straps and tape to hold everything together for tacking... Or at least so I am told and from what I have seen in pics.

    So with that said, make the needed changes to reflect better mfg practices when able. However, this may cause your plans to deviate completely so take that into account unless you plan to release a new full set based off your CAD files. Either Skylite fuselage will work so its less of an impact on the other plan sheets.

    Best of luck...
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2019
  18. Aug 3, 2019 #18

    addicted2climbing

    addicted2climbing

    addicted2climbing

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2012
    Messages:
    929
    Likes Received:
    258
    Location:
    Glendale, CA
    This could have been another, but to my knowledge was never built. It was a concept from Jim Marske that he did for someone. He sent it to me when I was considering something similar.

    185 Mph and 5 Gph is pretty amazing.

    Marc
     

    Attached Files:

  19. Aug 3, 2019 #19

    FritzW

    FritzW

    FritzW

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,438
    Likes Received:
    3,048
    Location:
    Las Cruces, NM
    2 cents... Get the plans you have into CAD first, playing with the models might show you exactly what you should do for your follow on design.
     
    Jimstix likes this.
  20. Aug 3, 2019 #20

    Hot Wings

    Hot Wings

    Hot Wings

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    6,208
    Likes Received:
    2,178
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    My plan, but just which one or what combination?

    My first set of CAD will probably be essentially AV-361 (wider, more curved, fuselage - longer wings)
    My next step is to add power similar to the way some of the AV-36s were modified by their owners with folding outer wing panels. This is the version I will actually build for myself.
    The Fauvel AV-45 (powered version) is quite different from these modified AV-36s
    << >>
    I'm actually thinking more about forward compatibility than backward. There have only been around 100 of these built from plans. It would be nice if future builders could upgrade to power by just building a new fuselage shell and transferring most of the hardware from the glider version.
    << >>
    100% new set of plans from my CAD. Not much of the original plans is in good enough shape to copy well.

    Thanks for the input! Seems we are thinking along the same lines with regard to modernizing the designs to take advantage of modern methods.
     
    Peter Mican likes this.

Share This Page

arrow_white