Sopwith Pup: Spar Clip Technote
The Sopwith Pup is a single seater biplane built by the Sopwith Aviation Company, another aircraft in my archive, though not one that I have done much work on. This is just a quick technote; so not a new project; my priority still lies with the P-39 Airacobra.
I received an email from a close friend and he asked if I could help him out with this model for the main spar clip, item number 1393-1 from the Sopwith drawings. The area in question was the cable lug at the base of this clip, which comprises 2 parts.
The problem related to matching the profile of the top part to the profile of the lower part, without extensive or complex modelling. For the lower part, I decided to use the sheet metal features to create this as a multi-body part which I would then use as a template to profile the upper section that is essentially an extension of the main model.
What he was trying to do was project a sketch from the each face of the lower part, extrude each sketch and then fit a bend to connect the two extrusions. He reckoned this was more complicated than it should be and asked me if there was better way of doing this.
He was actually not that far from achieving a simpler solution, he just needed to adapt the process a little bit.
In a previous article for the P-39 cabin glass I discussed the merits of selecting the solid surfaces as a means to modelling the jogged edges. I have used a similar technique here for developing the upper part of the lug.
Simply by selecting the top surfaces of the lower part as shown above; we then apply a thickness to this selection and opt to merge with the upper part as shown. There we have it; an exact match and fit between lower and upper lug parts in one step!.
It looks simple and often the best solution is, but occasionally it is easy to overlook the fact that we can manipulate the surfaces of a single solid model to create new separate parts without too much effort.
Squaring the Edge:
The Sopwith drawings for this part and many other similar parts are a little misleading given that they show the edges of these components as beveled. This is normally not good practice, particularly when metal meets timber. Ideally we need to square the edges to negate this problem and to facilitate the cutting of the developed sheet metal pattern.
These brackets are an awkward shape which requires some careful planning to ensure that the model is correct and can be manufactured. So to achieve this I occasionally use surfaces to set-out the basic cut profile shape and then thicken.
Thickening a surface model is actually a good way of working due to the thickness being applied normal (perpendicular) to the surfaces, thus by definition achieving a good square edge to the developed pattern.
As you can see in the image on the right the edges are square and easy to cut.
The other way of doing this is using the cut option feature from the sheet metal command.
By selecting the “Cut Normal” option in the dialogue this will ensure that each of the edges from this extrusion will be square to the surface when flattened.
Whilst we are on this subject; the weld seam at the top of this bracket is something I would consider improving by having a thin continuous metal strip either side of the seam instead of 3 smaller widths (top image) which may distort the metal, something like this (A):
Notice I have tidied up the bend at (B)…this gives a much cleaner profile when the draft angle is quite small. I should note that I don’t normally take liberties wth the manufacturer’s details, but occasionally exploring options to see how things could be improved can be quite an interesting exercise.
I should note that it is normally good practice to state on the 2D manufacturing drawing a “Break Edge” minimum size anyway for all edges even when square cut.