#21
|
|||
|
|||
I agree with maxakarudy that Wray might have gotten a bit ahead of himself by putting the joggles in and locking the arrangement.
One thing that I found interesting is that in 5A and B he did not do any additional stretching/shrinking after getting the FSP fitting properly. A few minutes at the beginning to stretch the nose opening as per the FSP and the rest of the video was all arrangement. I'm sure the can/will be tweaks at the end but the piece is very close as is.
__________________
Steve Better to be a learn-it-all than a know-it-all Facebook Page: fab.weld.wood WWW: http://www.fabweldwood.com |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
I am a fan of Wray's FSPs and do use them at times, as he says you can do your stretching and shrinking and work it out of arrangement and be sure you have the right area change.
However I too was surprised he locked the shape in with the headlamp joggle before checking with the profile gauges that the arrangement was correct. However with his expertise, he can no doubt fix it.
__________________
David Hamer |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Neil |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Niel No not enough shape yet. Watch part 5a and 5b. This system tell you exactly where to shrink and stretch. The guys that know how to use them make it look like magic. I have seen someone make a part for the wrong side turn it inside out and use it on the other side. I haven't seen anyone use a paper pattern that did not have to check progress lots of time by fitting to the buck or other parts . A FSP when it fits the part it is right.
__________________
Mark |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Been following this and surprised no one has said this yet so I guess I will. Paper patterns and FSP are 2 different things and actually could compliment each other in shaping something. A paper pattern to me is a road map. Tells me where to bend, stretch/ shrink put a return, how big of a blank to cut, etc. etc. A flexible shape pattern would be more like a buck used in place of profiles that you would use when shaping a piece with a paper pattern alone. So a more apt comparison would be between making profiles of a panel and a FSP. I think though that a FSP is fairly limited to small pieces whereas using a traditional method such as paper patterns and profile gauges is more suited to both large and small pieces.
I think that what bothers Neil and others is that FSP's are recommended by some to novices who don't have the experience to understand what the FSP is telling them. For a novice it would seem paper patterns and profiles would be a far more efficient and successful way to approach making a panel.
__________________
Chris (trying to be the best me I can be) |
#26
|
||||
|
||||
can someone post a video of anyone making a part with an FSP where the part does not yet exist? no wooden buck to work from and no old part to work from. i am interested in how they would go about producing the FSP to then make the part needed
__________________
Neil |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Neil |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Niel can you do the same for me with a paper pattern? I think It would be hard to make a paper pattern of a imaginary part. Question...…...At what point when using a paper pattern does the part fit? Can you make a part with a paper pattern and not have to check to see if it will fit until the part is done?
__________________
Mark Last edited by mastuart; 08-23-2019 at 11:55 PM. |
#29
|
||||
|
||||
__________________
Neil |
#30
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I used it to help make the basic shape and refined by eye. I then made a FSP of the finished part, turned it inside out, and used that to make the mirror image for the other side. Works for me. I get that you don't get it, but please accept that some folks do and there are lots of ways to shape metal and no single way is the 'right way' or the 'only way'.
__________________
Kerry Pinkerton |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|