Don't forget to check your spam folder if you don't get an activation email after joining!!

Cliff Charlesworth Olympia build in Bishop, CA.

Let us all watch your new project progress.
Greg Smith
Posts: 127
Joined: 26 Jan 2016, 00:20

Cliff Charlesworth Olympia build in Bishop, CA.

Post by Greg Smith »

I thought I should start this when I'm asking about aspects of the build which still aren't clear to me, rather than carrying on in the new members' section. Hope this is OK.

So far, I have put down the keel pieces for my first fuse. half and glued the formers to the keel, except for those involved with the wing mounting, which is a bit of a puzzle. I will be more specific about this on my next post, and after I've learned how to post a picture...
It's clear, though, that since the laser cut was made from the plans, there are things wrong, and since I partly rely upon things going together accurately in order to understand them, this is unfortunate. In low moments, I think that if I'd known what the situation was with regard to this model I would never have invested in it, but would have gone for a Chris Williams design, since this is likely to be by far the most time-consuming project I've undertaken. Not the fault of the laser cutter, of course: though I'm finding the same inaccuracies mentioned in the other threads.

Still, I have the book, the plans and the other threads, so I trust I'll be able to muddle my way through!

User avatar
ian davis
Posts: 133
Joined: 18 Mar 2015, 12:33
Location: Bishopstoke UK

Re: Cliff Charlesworth Olympia build in Bishop, CA.

Post by ian davis »

Greg

I have a Charlesworth Oly and it's my most flown glider for many years. Keep going. the reward will be worth the hassle.

With all the comments about accuracy of components I'm begining to wonder whether the original plan has lost something in translation either at the printing or scanning phase. Let us know where you problem areas are and I will check out my plan to try and understand what's going on.

Pic attachment is very straight forward. Click attachments down below and then add file. So much easier than it used to be.
Attachments
meise at wallop.jpg

User avatar
Peter Balcombe
Posts: 1178
Joined: 18 Mar 2015, 10:13
Location: Clevedon, North Somerset, U.K.

Re: Cliff Charlesworth Olympia build in Bishop, CA.

Post by Peter Balcombe »

Greg,
Have you found my Charlesworth Olympia build thread in the archived build threads section (page 3). Top up/missing photos are in the current build thread section under (Olympia update).
I have now built 2 of these models and as Ian says, there are plenty of others with Olys who can clarify most issues/queries you will come across.
It does go together ok, but there are a few areas where the plan could possibly be improved in hindsight.
Peter
Attachments
Full size VV400
Full size VV400
Model maiden
Model maiden

User avatar
RobbieB
Posts: 585
Joined: 07 Mar 2015, 22:22
Location: North West

Re: Cliff Charlesworth Olympia build in Bishop, CA.

Post by RobbieB »

Greg,

Stick with plan A - as Ian says, you will not be disappointed with the finished model.

There is an abundance of help and advice here on the forum to get you through some minor inaccuracies on the plan.

In all my years of model building from other peoples plans, including power (yes, we used to build power models in those days) I think the number of plans that didn't have mistakes on them could be counted on the fingers of one hand - and still have a few left over.

On the question of image posting, have a look at: http://scalesoaring.co.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=6

Greg Smith
Posts: 127
Joined: 26 Jan 2016, 00:20

Re: Cliff Charlesworth Olympia build in Bishop, CA.

Post by Greg Smith »

Thanks for the most generous replies, everyone; I will definitely post some pictures.
First question: The cutouts in the formers for the keel are shorter than the plan dimension for the keel: something I should have checked, but I just threw down the keel on the plan before I knew any better, then attached the formers, as a first step in the build. Thus the keel protrudes beyong the former (by different amounts, and not because I didn't cut the keel pieces accurately). SO: should I
1) Try to build up each former to the edge of the keel piece or
2) Make the ply shell abut the keel at the top and bottom of the former and have the keel as part of the 'exterior' of the fuse, or
3) Try to cut the keel ON THE PLAN (ugh) to size, since the keel pieces are all attached?

I would think 2, probably? A stupid mistake, but I was thinking at the beginning that the plan must be correct...
I have built a lot from plans, and would make up discrepancies as I went along, but not from plan plus CNC parts. I think having those made me a bit less independent/wary/thinking ahead. Now I know!

User avatar
ian davis
Posts: 133
Joined: 18 Mar 2015, 12:33
Location: Bishopstoke UK

Re: Cliff Charlesworth Olympia build in Bishop, CA.

Post by ian davis »

Hi Greg

As Cliff says, we really need some pictures to fully understand your problem.

You say that the former/keel mismatch is different on every former, that would suggest that maybe the formers are in the wrong positions on the keel.

What happens when you put a straightedge along the formers at the main longeron position, say between the mainplane trailing edge to the tailplane?. It should be a straight line. ;)

User avatar
Peter Balcombe
Posts: 1178
Joined: 18 Mar 2015, 10:13
Location: Clevedon, North Somerset, U.K.

Re: Cliff Charlesworth Olympia build in Bishop, CA.

Post by Peter Balcombe »

Greg,
Sorry to hear of your difficulties with your kit, but having now very nearly completed my 2nd 1/4 scale Charlesworth Olympia 2b, I will offer a few comments/suggestions.
My two Olys have gone together pretty well from the plan and two kits of laser cut parts supplied by Cliff Evans.
As with any hand drawn plan, there were a few anomalies and areas of head scratching, but everything worked out in the end.
If you have generally built to a laser kit produced from a totally CAD designed & cut kit then you are likely to find that these have gone together better than if the kit was produced from a hand drawn plan such as a Charlesworth one.
Hand drawn plans are more likely to have small inaccuracies which can be compounded by printing dimensional variations and the 'tracing' process for conversion to a digitised plan where part lines can be misinterpreted/added/missed.

Thus as with cutting your own parts & building from a hand drawn plan, you need to continually check parts against the whole and be ready to adjust as required.
Having said that, apart from a few areas, I found the Olympia parts provided by Cliff to go together pretty well. Cutting issues found during my builds were fed back to Cliff & the cutting drawings amended for future use.

My building philosophy is always to build over the plan wherever possible, adjusting any parts as necessary to fit the plan, particularly the main structures as otherwise you are always likely to be back-pedalling and adjusting everything else downstream as a consequence.

Getting down to your particular issues, I suggest that if you have built the keel over the plan and the formers do not fit, then either the plan or the formers are not scaled correctly, or maybe the odd former has not been traced correctly, or as Ian has suggested, the formers have possibly been fitted in the wrong order.
As a fuselage plan sheet dimensional accuracy check, former F9 should be 272mm high & 75.5mm wide. The tailplane span should be 720mm tip to tip & the distance from the front of former F1 to the front of F16 should be 943mm. (Sorry for metric, but better resolution than imperial measurement!)
If your measured equivalent dimensions are smaller than the above, then this could explain some of the problem.
If you have only started the first (left) fuselage side than I suggest you check the size of the unused (right side) formers over the templates shown on the plan to check for size.
If the former parts are the same size as the plan templates then everything should fit, otherwise you should be able to identify whether plan or the/some parts are out.

I would recommend that you first identify the cause of the fit problem, then if the formers are wrong, carefully remove the offending items by slitting the glue joint with a razor saw, revise the part and replace. If the plan scale is in error, then I suggest that you need to remove all items and start again with an accurately scaled plan, despite all the agro as you will always be chasing your tail because nothing will fit.
I strongly suggest you check the wing ribs against your wing plan templates before starting the wings in case you have any discrepancies there as well.

Hopefully, the issues are not serious & you can quickly identify the cause of the problem & move on quickly as the Olympia is a lovely model to build and fly.
By the way, have you looked at my original Charlesworth Olympia build thread (one of the earliest threads in the archive build thread section). The 1st photo shows the left side fuselage structure, albeit with keel infill strips in place. However, you will hopefully be able to make out that the formers all go to the outside edges of the keel.
Peter

Greg Smith
Posts: 127
Joined: 26 Jan 2016, 00:20

Re: Cliff Charlesworth Olympia build in Bishop, CA.

Post by Greg Smith »

Once again, thanks for such painstaking and thoughtful replies/help.
I certainly did not assemble the formers in the wrong order! We're talking about a good fit for formers 1-6, then up to 2.5mm out on 12-24, with some variability. The parts were cut by Marc's laser shop, here in the USA. My F9 is 271mm: close enough, eh? Unfortunately, I cut off and disposed of my former outlines as irrelevant, to make the plan small enough to fit on the workbench, so I can't check those further down the fuse. I've attached a couple of pictures: I hope you can see them if I've followed the right procedure. I'm on a Mac, so the instructions are slightly different: I-Phone to Cloud to computer desktop, then drag to attachment point.

I can't go back and disassemble the structure so far: I'm not that much of a perfectionist, and besides, these are the only parts I have and they are strongly attached. I will make do and keep you updated. Above all, I don't want you guys to waste your time with what is, after all, a fairly trivial matter! I greatly appreciate your time and will no doubt be calling upon you for more important things later. If the fuse profile is slightly off, it doesn't matter to me, as long as it's structurally sound and somewhere close.The main difference is that I'll have a keel seam to make invisible when I've finished my ply shell. So I'll attach my ply, then plane/sand the keel back to the ply (very carefully) then fibreglass. I think this should work.
Attachments
IMG_0301.JPG

Greg Smith
Posts: 127
Joined: 26 Jan 2016, 00:20

Re: Cliff Charlesworth Olympia build in Bishop, CA.

Post by Greg Smith »

Oh, Peter: I looked again at your suggestions, and at your build thread, which is on permanent access in my workshop (on the PC, with a big screen) and it looks, if I understand it correctly, that the ply shells meet at the bottom and top of the formers as a butt joint. Maybe not. Anyway, don't worry further: I'll sort it out. Per ardua ad astra... Mine will be unique.

User avatar
Peter Balcombe
Posts: 1178
Joined: 18 Mar 2015, 10:13
Location: Clevedon, North Somerset, U.K.

Re: Cliff Charlesworth Olympia build in Bishop, CA.

Post by Peter Balcombe »

Greg,
No problem, just ask away.
I note from the single photo attached on your previous reply that I cannot see the lower keel line on the drawing, so I'm not sure whether your lower keel surface is on the line or fractionally over (& maybe similar at the top).
Anyway, your formers should all have gone right to the outer edges of top & bottom keel strips if these outer edges were on the plan lines. I didn't have any problems in this area with either of my builds.
Therefore, yes I did have a butt joint on the skins top & bottom, but that is why the plan says to add the additional 1/4" infill between each former on the keels & sand this back flush to the former edges as it give a decent glueing land for the skins top & bottom. The balsa doubler fitted to each former also increases the skin glueing area, particularly as you will most likely need to add skins in single bay sections for all except the rearmost areas (feathering the vertical edges helps here, so that one skin slightly overlays the next, giving a wider bonding area).
You definitely need to skin the vast majority of the first side whilst it is still firmly pinned to the building board in order to avoid a banana fuselage effect. Once you have the majority skinned ( I did practically all of mine) then you can remove the half shell from the board to add the 2nd side formers & longerons without fear of any distortion.

Yes, you will get a small gap between the skins along the keel lines but the skins are firmly attached via the infill pieces and the small remaining gap is easily filled before glassing. Note that you will need to use filler on the nose area forward of the cockpit to avoid the 'starving animal' appearance as noted on the plan.
Planing off the projecting keel material may well be the best way forward now, but you should have fairly good straight lines from about the rear of the wing area backwards (all around the fuselage) if the former lines are correct. If you have significant hollows then I would say that some of the formers are too definitely small.
Have you checked all the formers against the templates shown on the plan? Even if the plan is not to correct scale, the former templates will also be out by the same amount & should therefore still fit. As I said before, getting the shape right early on saves potential problems downstream/excessive filling to overcome hollows.

Post Reply