CoosBayLumber

My Feedback: (1)

Plans for the Atlas by Matt

This is confusing me, and may you too, but...

In telephone conversation with old friend this past weekend, he saw my posting here on RCU concerning the Atlas by Wolfgang Matt. He is a little bit too old for flying such an A/C, but brought his set of plans over here for comparision, just the same. He purchased them via mail a good twenty years ago from M.A.N. but never built anything off them. And they are of slightly different size too. Fuselage measures much longer on his plan. Via contacts, have been finding a big inconsistancy as to printing and distribution of these plans.

I need a concensus. If folks here could dig out their copy of the Atlas plans as per M.A.N. from back in 1976 for one minute. Please go to sheet showing off the fuselage in side view, for this is where I have been finding the descrepancies. Just lay the plan FLAT on to the kitchen floor, and get out the old tape measure. Then...

Measure East-west down the centerline of the fuselage, from section B-B to section G-G, as shown on the plan. Then cite that distance you get to the accuracy of 1/32" if possible. For that distance, according to my plan, I get 28-23/32" here. Off the other plans have measured the same to be 3/8" greater and 3/16" shorter.

Cite the overall height of rudder if feasible too. As reference on my plan it is 9-7/16" tall.

And about when did you obtain the plans?


Wm.

Jim_Purcha

My Feedback: (8)

Dosen't the plans from MANs have a drawing scale of 0 to 6". What does it measure at? Did the paper shrink?

CoosBayLumber

My Feedback: (1)

There are two sheets per set for the Atlas. I think there may have been two differernt types of paper then too.

Most everyone agrees as to wingspan.

Most everyone disagrees as to actual fuselage length.

Mine fuselage has a visable Arc to the sheet, and in the wing, the paper looks to have folded and seamed. Not high quality printing. Variance could have been in quality of originals, paper, machine, or operator.

Wm.

rainedave

My Feedback: (1)

B-B to G-G = 29.315"

This is from the centers of the vertical black lines.

My copy is digital so I scaled the fuselage so that the wing saddle matches the wing center section. As long as the wing center section is a proper fit to the fuselage I'm not concerned if the overall fuselage length is slightly off (compared to what I don't know). In other words, I'll never have access to some "original standard" to which I could compare my plans to, anyway. But, then, I'm more concerned about parts fitting together than I am with authenticity.

David

adarsh_007

My Feedback: (1)

Hello Guys,

I'm planning to get a laser cut kit of the Atlas, any idea where can i get a soft copy of the plan in coral draw for laser cutting.

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Adarsh

bem

My Feedback: (1)

Hi,

Don't forget you have Eureka aircraft short kit of Atlas with foam win&stab or built up wing&stab.
You can get the plans there also.

/Bo

adarsh_007

My Feedback: (1)

Thanks Bem,

Its difficult and would be expensive getting the kit all the way here to India. Hence I decided to get a laser cut kit done here. I presently have a full size hard copy plan with me, but i need to go thru the painful process of digitising the plan and re-doing again in coral draw format or for laser cutting i think they use a cad format.
Hence seeking a ready to laser cut soft copy of the plan.

Regards,
Adarsh

AndyKunz

Different laser cutters use different software. From what I've seen, those geared toward engraving use Corel while those geared to cutting use CAD. I have used cutters of both sorts. Since I do all my work in CAD, DXF or DWG files are my choice of output. It really doesn't matter a lot, as there are very good conversion programs. Vector in, vector out.

Andy

adarsh_007

My Feedback: (1)

Thanks Andy,

Anyone with a soft copy of the plan in coral draw or cad format out there?

Regards,
Adarsh

singlechannel

I flew my own scratch built atlas, from RCM&E plans of about 1976, for about 30 years, off and on. Other planes came and went but every now and again I would dig it out from behind the lawn mower and from under the kids bikes and together with a few more dents and scratches it would once more fly again. I have a photo (on a piece of card, remember those) of my rather nervous18 month old daughter, now 24 years old, supporting one wing while standing in the back garden. Anyway I loved the way that thing flew, it had the smoothest elevater response it gave you the impression of solidity in the air. From memory it wieghed about 8 1/4 lb I had a super tiger S.61 with a pipe on it and a fixed undercart. To try and keep it quiete I ran it with a APC 11 by 11 or 11 by 10 with usually straight fuel this gave me around 9300 or so revs. It was'nt too good in the vertical, square loops were ok but forget about a full roll in the vertical (maybe half a roll), anyway cheers rob
BTW I still have the RCM&E twin plan

pimmnz

Yeah Rob, my Atlas is now in its fourth year of competition, from the RCM&E plan, just under 7lb with OS61 FSR, retracts and no pipe, It has no vertical limits, it slows a bit, but keeps going up. Have to agree about the handling, nicest of all of them, and I have flown the best known of the models of the period. Followed by Superstar, Blue Angel, Super Sicroly, Curare, in order. No American models there, but I do fly a Warlord and Super Kaos, but I can't call them 'serious competition' when lined up against the others. Which is funny, go back another 5 years and the best models are mostly American in origin...
Evan, WB #12.

gkaraolides

Hi Evan,

Since you have experience of all these models I'm very interested to know more details about your comparison between the Super Sicroly and the Curare. In what ways do you think the Super Sicroly was better?

Best regards,

George

pimmnz

Not sure how to explain it George, you have to fly them 'back to back' to appreciate the subtle differences. Realising this is entirely subjective, and depends on pilot preference, but: Sicroly has a fatter, blunter wing and is slightly larger than Curare, so the drag is higher and the speed a little slower and more 'constant' specially in the heading down bits. The roll needs just slightly less correction as you go inverted but it needs a bit more time to unwind from the spin. Dunno how to explain it but it feels just a bit more 'solid' in the air. Curare can probably be made to do more accurate patterns, but is less forgiving of minor transgressions and makes it easier for the judges to see the slight heading/angular faults. You have to be on top of your game to get an accurate looking flight from Curare, whereas (specially as the day wears on) Sicroly allows you to relax, just a bit, and still look pretty good. For me that is important, as in a contest lasting a couple of days you might get up to 6 flights over 8 hours each day and you need all flights to look consistently good to place. For me, Sicroly is easier to fly consistently, so is better as a competition model. Others will have totally differing views, depending on taste and style.
Evan, WB #12.

singlechannel

I looked at a SuperSicroly plan on this forum and it show a blunt leading edge and thick wing, with similar tail. The Atlas has the same features and I allways thought this explained its solid feel to the elevator.
I also found that Hanno Prettner used my 'Super Tigre S 61' to win the 1883 world champs in his Calypso. I assumed the S 61 was just a solid but ordinary engine but maybe it was rather less ordinary than I thought. Back in the UK I had it propped down to around 9300 because noise was an issue but, if I ressurect it maybe I should prop it for around 1200 or 1300 thousand because noise is'nt such a problem here.
Any thoughts, Cheers Rob
PS is there a spell check on here.</p>

singlechannel

I nearly forgot to ask Evan, Can you tell me what prop size and what sort of revs you are getting on your OS FSR 61 maybe my ST S61 might be capable of something similar, or if not I might just use my Tigre 90.
Cheers Rob.

pimmnz

Rob, I have no idea. Prop is a 11x7 APC and standard muffler, I run slightly rich, as I have no spares and don't want to cook it, and power is 'adequate'. Besides, static RPM figures mean squat. The engine is easy to handle and reliable, and that's all in want from it.
Evan.