Experimenting with kitbashing

[Leif Ohlsson]

I'm sort of looking at the Maly Modelarz Sopwith Camel (1/33 scale), since it is the only reasonably detailed Camel there is. The Sopwith Triplane, as well as the SE5A, both exist as highly detailed Orlik models in the better 1/25 scale. A Sopwith Pup in this range would be very nice!

I'm thinking about enlarging, to my usual 1/16 scale. The MM Camel is really admirably suited, since all parts fit nicely into A4 paper size, even in 1/16 scale - which is very rare!

The MM Camel is nice in other aspects as well. The level of detailedness is very reasonable, and you can still choose between two versions, with different colour schemes. Since I decided not to be a history freak this time, I'm thinking of mixing the two versions, to yield the nicest looking Camel to my mind.

However, in some aspects the MM Camel is just a tad sparsely detailed. The two Vickers guns, as an example, are hardly more than a box and a tube. So I decided to have a look at the guns of the most highly detailed version of a paper model kit I know of, namely the Orlik SE5A.

I attach the result of the text below. I will build two new guns, after having tried out the correct amount of doubling and 2mm fillets required to give a good result in 1/16 on this trial version.

The level of detailing in these high-range models (the Orlik ones, not the Maly Modelarz) is really frightening. The kitmakers even require that you cut out a number of small taps and bolts. I'm glad the Camel is more sensibly detailed.

I will try to emboss the cooling mantle in the two new guns. Otherwise I'm pleased (but for the work involved!). What I'll never be able to make is the sighting frame (the circular wire pattern with a cross and a small circle inside). Tried it twice and failed abysmally. Anybody ever succeeded to make one of these?

My Camel will have to be equipped with an Aldis tubular sight. I attach a nice sketch I found on the internet what it should look like when finished (except for the ring sight...).

Leif

[Gil]

Hi Leif,

Been wondering where you've been. Good to see you back!

The Sopwith Camel is one of the penultimate aircraft of WWI. The Maly Modelarz is a great choice for a 1:16 scale up. I agree that the Orlik SE-5a, although complete, seems to be over designed for the representative scale. I think that one has to contemplate what features identify with the overall "theme" of a model's presentation for a successful outcome.

The Vickers machine gun is very nicely done. They'll look good on the Camel. The double circle gunsight does present a challenging build task. Single strand silk thread, concentric circles, sticky substrate for assembly setup...,

+Gil

[ashevilleangler]

Welcome back Lief! Your builds are always both enjoyable and highly educational,... at least for a builder of my modest abilities.

Cecil

[B-Manic]

Very nice gun Lief. A model all by itself.

[lee4752]

I don't think anyone would mind if one were to go the photoetch route for the double ring gunsight.

[Texman]

I don't think anyone would mind if one were to go the photoetch route for the double ring gunsight.

There appears to be a heretic amongst us....

Ray

[shrike]

Do you have a straight-haired child?

I've had very good luck with simple crosshairs of approximately 2mm using cigarette paper to roll up the rings and a few lengths of hair from child#2 (child #1's is too curly, and the cats are not cooperative) attached with CA glue.
You could do the same thing with 2 concentrig rings and then clip out the hair in the centre

[Golden Bear]

I did a gunsight on the Knoller build over at the other site. I soft beading wire and spiral wrapped it to the correct size, overlap cut it and then tweaked it all into line - this to get a nice circle. I think that I used some superfine polyester basting thread that you can get at a sewing store. It is so fine that it really isn't good for much. However, if you want to put the tiny inner ring in then you are on your own and I will applaud your efforts.


Carl

[John Bowden]

Used the hair from my Husky on the Paperwerks P-40 when I did it......... I also used thin copper wire to make the ring, as detailed by GB.

Next time I"ll use very thin copper wire I got from taking apart a "dead" hard drive....... amazing what you can find in those things.

[ashevilleangler]

Lief, I did a gunsight for a P-40 using floss stiffened with CA glue and formed around a small dowel. The crosshairs were human hair attached with CA and then trimmed. I also once used fine lead wire formed around a dowel, stiffened with Elmers glue and painted silver for a radio DF ring.

While the results aren't perfect, they were good enough for my models.

Cecil

[birder]

That is very nice Lief! Good luck with the sight. The gunsight on the a6m2 was almost rediculously tiny, and I omitted the crosshairs. I'm not sure anyone has even noticed the gunsight being there!:)

[Leif Ohlsson]

Many thanks for all the good tips - this turns out to be a regular catalogue of good practices.

Here's another one.

I printed the ring sight on ordinary overhead film, and framed three-quarter of the outer rim with a thin strip of paper. The finished assembly is glued in a thin cut at the top of the gun. The result is reasonably close to the sketch.

And I managed it at the first attempt!

Leif

[B-Manic]

The sight looks very good. I'll have to remember that tip.

[redhorse]

Very nice, and a great tip. Thanks Leif.

[Leif Ohlsson]

I'd like to share two techniques I've tried out for the first time. They are mainly for those of you who would like to try out enlarging. The example is the Maly Modelarz Sopwith Camel 1/33, enlarged to 1/16, which is slightly more than double the original size.

Depron instead of cardboard for laminating

The first tip - which I find a great improvement - is using Depron instead of "graupappe" or thick cardboard for laminating bulkheads, framework parts, etc.

Until now I have used hard 2 mm cardboard, which really is quite impossible to cut. In the past I have used a power fretsaw to manage. The result was a lot of noise & dust, and not much fun.

Now I have tried 2 mm Depron instead. This is a white, foamy material originally used for insulating floors when installing electric floor heating. Modelers use it for very lightweight RC models, like those now available also as toys.

I got my 2 mm sheets free from the artists' shop. The stuff is used as protective packaging for those large sheets of paper they sell. An understanding person in the staff thought of it when they couldn't supply the "Graupappe" or "Finnpapp" or "Koelner pappe" I was looking for.

It really was a revelation. I use ordinary white glue to laminate the printed paper, plus a backside of equal thickness paper to eliminate warping. The glue (slightly diluted, same as for building models) is brushed on the Depron part (easiest glueing I've done), and delamination is not worse than for sprayglue.

I used 200 g paper (same as for the parts) in this experiment, but have tried also ordinary thin 80 g office paper with good result (although visible bubbles are harder to avoid; none of these with the stiffer paper).

The Depron takes surprisingly well to edgecolouring, even with ordinary water-colour pencils. Cutting it is like cutting through butter, and any sanding required is very easily accomplished.

The first picture below shows the former carrying the Vickers gun. The slot for the gun, and the small square part with a hole in it has been edgecoloured with grey, as examples. The instrument panel in the background has been edgecoloured in places, too.

The second picture shows rudder and stab parts, likewise with Depron-laminated framework parts, before glueing them up. The framework parts have been sanded slightly; more sanding was required later to make a good and rounded fit. It was very easy.

Reinforce rudder horns with overhead film

The second, smaller, tip is about reinforcing rudder horns and other small doubled-up parts with one or two layers of overhead film, to enable drilling small holes in them without destroying the part.

The overhead film is laminated between the two layers of paper with the printed pattern (folded around one or two layers of overhead film). Ordinary white glue is used for glueing also the overhead film. The result is a very hard part. It is easily drilled, and will not break up (I hope) when tying the rudder wire.

The third picture shows the rudder horns on the stab (fin & rudder in the background are the same). 0,75 mm holes have been drilled in the rudder horns (marked by pins to demonstrate).

Good for ship-builders as well?

The reason I said these techniques were mainly for 1/16 scale work is that I haven't found any 1 mm Depron required for ordinary 1/33 scale laminating work, and that small parts may turn out too thick when laminated with overhead film in 1/33 scale.

Also, I constantly hope to be able to encourage others to try out this larger scale, beginners in particular. It is much easier to achieve a good result in double scale, since any inaccuracies show up only half as much. With the Depron technique, another obstacle to enlarging is removed.

However, the Depron technique might also be useful for all you ship-builders out there, if you don't mind getting your framework parts twice as thick. I've read many complaints about numb hands and dull knives from these quarters. The Depron technique would make framework-building a real pleasure, I can assure you.

Leif

[hamedmayel]

.... very exciting ,,,,,

[shrike]

I fould 1mm Depron in the US at RC Foam Discount Hobby Supplies (http://www.rcfoam.com). and the UK but serving the EEC at Home (http://www.samsmodels.com)

[redhorse]

I've read many complaints about numb hands and dull knives from these quarters. The Depron technique would make framework-building a real pleasure, I can assure you.

Leif

Thanks for sharing this one Leif. This is great, I'm going to have to try it - 2mm cardboard is terrible to work with.

[John Bowden]

It's always great when a Master shares his techniques and allows students to watch!

I'm watching from the side with jaw gaped open along with eyes and ears.

It is always a pleasure seeing your work Leif! I'm thinking this Camel will out-shine your P-39!

john

[Leif Ohlsson]

The MM Sopwith Camel has no provision for anything but a rudder bar and a simple control stick. So I added the aileron quadrant, and control wires. Also cut out a suitable opening in the cockpit floor to allow for more realistic tubing.

It is very good to have an assortment of coloured paper handy when making details. Whenever a rolled-up tube-shaped part is called for, I would recommend using coloured paper instead of the part provided. It eliminates the need for edgecolouring, etc.

The aileron quandrant is made of four layers of brown & dark grey paper. The rudder bar has an inlay of overhead film to make it stiffer and to enable safe drilling of 0.75 mm holes. Control wires are coarse, roughly copper-coloured sewing thread. Silk is better, but I deemed it too thin.

I haven't found a good method to make sewing thread control wires really smooth. I know about CA, but don't like to use it. Any other tips?

Merry Christmans to all!

Leif

PS. The rear end will be invisible under the pilot's chair. It will be glued against a solid former.

[shrike]

Bee's wax, but only after you've glued or tied the ends

[Leif Ohlsson]

Thanks, Shrike - but please explain "only after you've glued or tied the ends". I'd like to do it right, and know why I'm doing it...

Leif

[CharlieC]

I don't know if this will help but I use thread for tow cables and similar in AFV models. All I do is run the thread through Acrylic Varnish and wipe off the excess. The varnish gets rid of the "fuzzies" on the thread and stiffens the thread a little. The thread can still be glued with PVA glue after this treatment.

Regards,

Charlie

[redhorse]

I haven't found a good method to make sewing thread control wires really smooth. I know about CA, but don't like to use it. Any other tips?

I got a tip off a model ship forum I go to that I have not tried yet, but will shortly. He uses Aleene's tacky glue to stiffen and smooth down thread for rigging. I don't know if that glue is available in Sweden, but I'm thinking any white glue might work.

[shrike]

Drawing a thread over (through) a block of beeswax is the old tailor's method to smooth it, but I've never tried to glue a waxed thread. It should tie OK though.

[redhorse]

I tried the Aleene's method and it worked! Really well- so far. As usual with CA, I hung it over my bench pin with a self clamping tweezer on either side. It stiffened it up with no fuzz and it should glue with no problem. At least I think so. I'll be gluing some on my Isuzu the next day or so. This would be great if I don't have to use CA to glue this stuff.

[Leif Ohlsson]

Many thanks for the tip with white glue on rigging wire! I will be sure to try that out.

Now for a progress report on the engine. It is more or less finished, although a few details remain. It was such a lot of fiddling getting this far, so I thought I'd calm down by relating progress so far.

I thought the MM engine provided was a bit sparsely detailed, so I rummaged through what I collected over the years and found an excellent Clerget engine by Richard Schulten (source in the next post). The only problem was that it modeled an 80 hp 7-cylinder Clerget, while the 130 hp one on the Camel was 9-cylinder.

So I decided to keep the MM original crankcase, and printed extra Schulten cylinders and details.

Now for the pictures:

1. Assembling the original MM crankcase. I decided to stuff it with metal washers to increase weight and momentum. The engine will be rotary, as per original, and the extra weight will make it spin more realistically, as well as helping to get CG more correct.

2. A bit into the build I realized that rivets on the crankcase ought to be better modeled, so I printed extra parts, embossed them from the back side and glued them in place over the original ones.

3. MM crankcase with Schulten cylinders in the foreground, and various details still to be cut out in the background.

4. The intake manifolds were a pain to fold up and glue properly. Things became a bit easier when I decided to get rid of the small tabs. They were a nuisance. The larger tabs were kept, since they actually made glueing easier.

5. Manifolds glued in place on the back side. If you want to see what they could look like, have a look at the next post for Richard Schulten's 1/11 original.

6. Valve pushrods glued in place. And the glue hasn't even dried yet. A coat of varnish will make everything look neater, eventually.

What remains to be done is a circular bit on the front, and perhaps a thin conical backside. That depends on whether I will actually make the ignition wires. I'm very hesitant about that, though. Don't think I'll manage anything that won't look clumsy.

Leif

[Leif Ohlsson]

Richard Schulten has an excellent 1/11 and 1/33 Clerget 7-cylinder engine on his "The Brainstorm Inn (http://home.planet.nl/~schul923/submersible.html)" website.

The same engine is available from Paperwarbirds (http://www.paperwarbirds.net/content.do;jsessionid=75A5E901D25D32013E77F05B13E9 6C46?page=page.2_download2), where in addition you can find several other WWI engines.

William Wylam has made an outstanding drawing of both the 7- and 9-cylinder Clergets. See the first image below.

The next three images are 3-D drawings of the Clerget by Mark Miller.

Finally a photo of Richard Schulten's own 7-cylinder Clerget. I imagine it is the 1/11 version. The build is exceptionally clean.

Leif

[Don Boose]

This is wonderful stuff, Leif! I always enjoy your build threads and the glimpses into your tidy workshop. I am saving all of this for future reference.

I admitre the care and thoroughness with which you document your research and your model building efforts and very much appreciate your willingness to share the results with us.

Don

[redhorse]

Fascinating build! Are you going to motorize this as well?

[pahorace]

Hi Leif,
a very exciting result.

Orazio.

[Leif Ohlsson]

Hello, Jim

The engine will be rotary, but just free-wheeling. I was thinking about how often I really had turned the switch on my motorized models to see the prop spin, and came to the conclusion that it wasn't worth the bother.

I'd like to make a really good motorized rotary engine at some point. In that case, the motor will be sort of stuck into the rotary engine, which will rotate around it, like a kind of shell (no backside then, of course). My standard motors are a little bit to large for a 1/16 Clerget or any WWI engine, so I'm thinking about some small 9V motors salvaged from hairdryers.

As an interlude, I've been looking for really good plans for the Camel (not that I'll actually use them for the build, but they are nice to have). I found some very good ones at Airwar.ru (http://www.airwar.ru/other/draw/sopwithcamelkagero.html).

Anbody building a Camel really should download them. The original drawings are in 1:48, 1:24, and details in 1:6 by Maciej Noszczak 2003, published by (Polish?) magazine KAGERO.

For myself, I've rescaled them to 1/16 and rearranged them suitably, but I realize that most will want to build in 1/33, so here are versions in that scale. These are not the complete set of drawings as downloaded, just and edited version, pertinent to the MM model.

Note the very detailed structural drawings, and the slightly different details of the carburettor & ignition parts of the engine, as compared to previous illustrations.

Leif

[Leif Ohlsson]

OK, so I finished the engine, for now. The free-wheeling mechanism still remains to be made (a rod glued inside a tube for rigidity, and another tube rotating around it). The excuse to wait is that the final prop dimension really ought to be at hand... As for the photos:

1. Adding the ignition wires (thin copper thread from dismembered electrical cord) to the spark plugs (amputated pins) created a bit of a magpie's nest at first.

2. Things got a bit better when all eighteen ends finally got in place. The conical backside (emulated by layers of grey paper, decreasing diameters) is about to go on.

3. Finished engine from the front, compared to a Wright Cyclone of the same 1/16 scale (for a Polikarpov I-16). Note the huge difference in size (plus of course technology and output) - and less than 20 years between them.

4. Same engines from the back. Jim, note the electric motor for the Cyclone. This is the way it should stick through the firewall, also for a rotary. Difference is that the rotary should be attached to the motor shaft, and the crankcase rotate like a shell around the motor. This particular motor simply is just a bit too large for the Clerget.

Leif

[Don Boose]

Beautiful work, Leif! I appreciate the comparison with the Cyclone to the same scale (and I like the little easel/engine stand). I'm glad to be able to see the motorizing arrangement you built for the Cyclone.

Are the Clerget push rods made of wire?

Don

[redhorse]

This is fascinating, and excellent modeling. I'm wondering if one of the smaller RC electric motors would work to power the Clerget.

[Leif Ohlsson]

Don, yes, the pushrods are 0.75mm piano wire. A pain to cut, even at this small diameter, but dead straight and appropriately shiny. Previous attempts to cut piano wire ruined two recently purchased cutters designed to cut soft electronic leads close to a surface. Nowadays I use ordinary hardware-store cutters. Not as exact, so as often as not you'll have to adjust the cut-off length.

Jim, I've no doubt exotic RC motors will power a Clerget. But not a pager motor, like in the cheap twin-engine toy RC planes, I don't think. At 1/16 scale there is quite a lot of mass inertia and air resistance to overcome. Besides, the pager motors are so small, their leads so tiny, the shafts so thin and short, and everything about them so exotic that I have given up on them.

I'm thinking of sturdier (and cheaper) stuff, more like the motor below, salvaged from one of those slim hair-curlers with an heated fan in them. You can get an old one at the flea market for a pittance; if you dissassemble it, you will find that the motor runs very well on a 9V battery. (The difference between 230V and 9V is eaten up in the heating spirals no doubt.)

In fact, if you keep the little fan I think it would be ideal for a jet engine (just for show, of course) even in 1/33 scale. And a rechargeable 9V battery ought to be possible to stack away in the fuel tank or similar, both in a Camel and other models.

But not this time.

Leif

[contourcreative]

Very good work Leif..great to see a few of you chaps 'pushing the paper envelope' Why should the plasticos have all the fun...

[Leif Ohlsson]

I wanted to try out an idea for making a truly layered prop in paper. The basic idea stems from Lech's Thomas Morse Seaplane. It was once a free model at his Modele Kartonowe site (http://www.modele-kartonowe.com/), but no longer so, I just found out.

He provided a very coarsely layered prop for that model. I think it will be OK to illustrate his idea (photo 1), together with a few other prop images I collected.

I copied those eight layers on top of each other, and filled in three more layers of outlines between each of them. The result was 32 layers, divided into two halves, front & back (photo 2).

Next, I copied these layers on to two print sheets, for printing on two shades of brown paper. The layers were divided up so that four layers of paper constituted one simulated layer of wood (photos 3 & 4).

The layers are numbered 1-4 for building the front half, and 5-8 for the back half (with sublayers 1-4 for each of these main layers). Layers 1 and 5 are center layers, front and back respectively, so you build two halves outwards from that.

Cutting and glueing the parts really was the simplest part of the operation (photos 5 & 6). The finished raw prop, however, was not quite up to expectations. The design of the layers aren't really perfect, and I don't quite know where the fault lays. The back is rather good, but the front contains an awkward nick close to the center, inherited from Lech's original. Also, the change of incidence along the line of the prop is not great enough for scale, and the profile is generally too thick.

Getting an acceptable result from that took a lot of sanding, which is just what I had hoped to avoid. And you can't even do the job with a Dremel, I found, since the rotating sanding bit just clogs up from all that glue between the 32 layers. In the end, I had to resort to rather coarse sandpaper and do it by hand.

The result is pretty enough, I think (last photo), but the prop is a bit too thin for scale. 40 layers should yield a more appropriate result.

I think it would be a very worthwhile idea to develop patterns for such a 40-layered prop. Does anybody know of a source for getting hold of proper patterns? Or would it be necessary to resort to some rather painstaking geometrical analysis of the prop shown in the first illustration? (It is from a Russian drawing for the Sopwith Triplane, at the Airwar.ru site.) In that case, I think I'd have to pass. Interesting as it might be, the job is a bit too advanced for me.

Leif

PS. I know that the Camel might not have had a two-coloured propeller like this, but the temptation to see the pattern emerge was just too great. An idea would be to change the colour of paper for every layer, to provide more of a natural graining pattern, such that layers 1-1, 1-3, 2-1, 2-3, etc would be printed on one kind of paper, and 1-2, 1-4, 2-2, 2-4, etc on another.

PPS. The two print sheets shown here are reduced to 1/33 for the benefit of anyone who would like to try them out, despite their present shortcomings.

[dansls1]

Excellent result, the final product could easily be mistaken for a hand-sanded wooden prop. I swear I've seen a similar prop on either a German or Polish sight - but that does nothing to take away the final result you acheived here!

[Don Boose]

Another excellent tutorial, Leif. This method makes perfect sense for larger models. Your result is outstanding and captures the beauty of those wooden propellors. Thank you also for the useful propellor images.

This is a most memorable build thread with an enormous amount of valuable information presented very systematically and with excellent images.

Incidentally, I recall that during the U.S. Army's expedition into Mexico in 1916 the wooden propellors of the accompanying aircraft (Standards and Curtiss JNs, I think) had a tendency to delaminate in the desert air and so they were kept in large humidors like cigars. (I can't put my hand on a source for this bit of trivia just now, I recall it from a lecture given by an Air Force historian at a conference here at the Army War College many years ago).

Don

[redhorse]

Excellent! I always learn so many interesting and useful techniques from your posts Leif.

[Leif Ohlsson]

Don, the pattern on the right in the first picture is for a Jenny (Ralph Beck drawing for a 1/6 flying scale model). Which now makes me think that I have interpreted Lech's patterns all wrong, substituting front for back...

I never quite got the hang of those tip covers. I thought they were to protect the leading edge. From the Jenny, it seems that the same kind of covers which Lech has modeled, is more to protect the trailing edge from delaminating. This would mean that his Thomas Morse prop was rotating counter-clockwise (from the pilot's point of view).

On the other hand, the shape of Lech's propeller is just like the Triplane, which is what might have led me astray. And the Triplane prop rotated clockwise (from the pilot's point of view), for sure. And it ought to have been the same kind of engine in the Thomas Morse, I would have thought.

Shrike, to the rescue, please...

- L.

[dansls1]

Without a 3rd view, it's hard to say if the Jenny drawing puts the 'cover' on the leading edge of the prop or trailing. As you say, the pictures I can find quickly online show the Camel as having a clockwise (from pilot POV) rotating prop, so your interpretation is correct in this case.
[I am suddenly thrown back to a long discussion with my father when I was probably too young to really have the interest that his explanation deserved over why some props have the 'sweep' forward versus reverse - but I suppose that's what I get for asking somebody with extensive knowledge of aerodynamics such a question. I think the ultimate answer was because of varying engine torque characteristics and having to look at the entire propulsion system as a whole rather than being able to determine why props were designed a certain way on any broad basis.]

[Don Boose]

Leif --

You raise a question that goes beyond my meager expertise. I know that WWII British airscrews rotated the opposite way from U.S. propellors and assumed that this was also true in WWI. But if they rotated clockwise from thepilot's POV, then they would be turning the same as U.S. props. I agree -- Shrike will have to bring his expertise to bear!

Incidentally, I had a dear Swedish friend with whom I served in Korea in the 1970s (he served with the Swedish contingent to the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission) and visited in Sweden in the 90s. He was a Flygvapnet officer who began his career in 1939 (flew Seversky fighters with F8 at Barkaby in 1940) and once had the propellor come off the Gloster Gladiator he was flying. For a while he was known as "Airscrew Nils." I have a photocopy of the news story about the incident.

When telling me this story, he jokingly said, "Well, you know Don, those British propellors turns backwards and it must have unscrewed itself."

Don
PS: I would love to have been a fly on the wall listening to your father explaining propellor aerodynamics to young Dan.

[John Bowden]

Somewhere out here Gil has a Tut on this prop technique.........

Looks good Leif.......... that muti-color lends itself to these aircraft so well!

john

[Gil]

Hello All,

First off, I'd like to comment on Leif's prop work. The result is realistic enough to be mounted, but then again, I am a sucker for a good looking laminated wooden propeller. The first go at something is always the most difficult. After the second or third turn it becomes alarmingly easy as you know all the places that need attention...,

Like just about all things there is a lot more than meets the eye when it comes to wooden propellers. The reason for the banding is that they were laminated softwood between hardwood layers (generally the lighter of the two was the softwood). This allowed the prop to absorb much of the instantaneous piston impulse, long the curse of piston engines. It additionally reduced the amount of harmonic energy circulating in the complex engine-propeller rotating system (want to see something really come apart-try harmonic disintegration). In some WWII aircraft their were red lines on the tach which were "pass through only" marking instances of destructive harmonic vibration.

Another item that we've all forgotten is that in the early days of aviation the idea of an airport was one of science fiction. The word airfield nominally describes the ideal place of operation, would be what we now call a grass field (depending upon the time of the year and whether it'd been hayed etc.) The propeller blades subjected to repeated grass trimmings would begin to suffer leading edge tip damage, unto itself is not that worrisome, the real problem being that it exposed raw wood to the elements and the possibility of delamination. Covering the exposed leading edge of the tips protected the layer of varnish thus preserving the prop. Remember also that the exposure to petrol mixed with castor oil also took a toll on "surface treatment" of the prop and must be why we see so many shots of someone with a rag wiping the prop down...,

+Gil

P.S. Don't have any idea where the blurb on prop making went...,

[shrike]

Ok dokes, I'll leap in with what I can. I have one advantage here in that I have a propeller from a WACO UPF-7 leaning up in the corner of my living room for ready access and research.

The metal covering - usually copper or brass, goes on the leading edge where it protects the wooden prop from debris - either sand and gravel on the ground, or rain in the air. It also allows for the tips to be made in a thinner section than if they were uncovered wood. That's the major benefit of a metal prop over a wooden one - thinner airfoils.

Banded props are usually mahogany and maple. I'll buy Gil's explanation of differing the harmonic balance as as good as anything. It also makes it much easier for the craftsman to see how well it's shaped by the smoothness of the curves. Most props were and are one type of wood. Wood is already really good at absorbing an dampening vibrations. The WACO prop, mentioned before, is all mahogany.

The sweep of the prop blades - so called scimitar props - I think are as much a styling choice an anything else circa 1917. It's true that the limiting speed of a propellor is tips speed approaching Mach, and that sweeping the tips (see the rotors on a UH-60 etc) has the same effect as sweeping the wings on a trans/supersonic airplane, I'm not sure I'm willing to say that's the reason given the aeronautic knowledge of the day. ( I could be wrong )

I'm sorry Leif, I don't know of any easier way to lay out the layers than to start with a drawing like you have. Carving a wooden prop is one of those things where the mathematics are esoteric, but the practical part is just heavy pencil work. If you like I can dig out my "carve your own Propellor" book and see if there is an example to work from.

U.S. and German engines tend to run counterclockwise when viewed from the front. British engies tend to clockwise and French engines can be either way. Russian engines tend to the US pattern in round motors (being Wright derived) and clockwise in inlines (Klimov being derived from the Hispano Suiza) An odd little aside there. The russians recieved a number of Allison powered P-40s as lend-lease. Engine spares were difficult to obtain so they fitted Klimovs of similar weight and output, but opposite rotation. Since the rudder was built offset to account for the torque of the Allison they were a handfull (and playable that way in IL2)


Don - I can coroborrate first hand the statement about the props drying out and delaminating. I had to ship one of our test props back to the manufacturer 2 weeks ago after it came apart under power. There was much surprise followed by cursing an then tearing the engine apart to inspect for damage.

[Leif Ohlsson]

This is just a note to myself and other interested. Oliver Weiss of this site posted a link to a site with animated engines, among them a rotary two-stroke Gnome. Oliver's original thread is here:

http://www.papermodelers.com/forum/bookshelf/2349-steam-engine-animations.html#post31249

And the Gnome engine is described here:

Animated Engines, Gnome (http://www.keveney.com/gnome.html)

Go there to read the full explanation of this fascinating animated illustration:

http://www.keveney.com/img/gnome.gif

Note that there is one fixed point off-center of the axis of rotation. Never would have guessed that was the way it worked. Must have been mounted on the fixed back-plate.

The Gnome apparently was two-stroke (at least it is listed as such at the site above). I wonder if that was the case with other rotary engines as well, like the Le Rhone, Clerget, and Bentley? They do have valves for exhaust and intake, which to me would indicate four-stroke. But perhaps everything is upside down with rotaries.

Leif

[Gil]

The Gnome apparently was two-stroke (at least it is listed as such at the site above). I wonder if that was the case with other rotary engines as well, like the Le Rhone, Clerget, and Bentley? They do have valves for exhaust and intake, which to me would indicate four-stroke. But perhaps everything is upside down with rotaries.

Leif

Hi Leif,

I was under the same assumption till I obtained a copy of "The Rotary Aero Engine" by Andrew Nahum, 1987, Science Museum.

All engines covered in the book (this includes Bentley, Clerget, Gnome, LeRhone, Oberursel (LeRhone copy) and Siemens-Halske) operated on a normal four stroke (Otto) cycle (see pages 42-44).

Despite all the other faults of rotaries they were very smooth running, a necessary requirement for the types of aircraft they were used in.

+Gil

[shrike]

They were four-stroke, but often used crankcase induction with a fuel/oil mix Like a two-stroke The air and fuel was drawn in though a hollow crankshaft that also formed the major element of the engine mount. On the Camel et alli, the large holes in those oval panels aft of the cowling are the inlets to the carburetor.
Rotaries also gained a minor centrifugal supercharging effect from the mixture being thrown outwards to the cylinders.

[looker]

I cross quoted this on the other thread

Quote:
Note that there is one fixed point off-center of the axis of rotation. Never would have guessed that was the way it worked. Must have been mounted on the fixed back-plate.

That is the offset of the crankshaft. Remember the crankshaft was fixed and the engine went round it.

I see my quote is from the other thread - hey ho.

Did I get confused or did someone confuse me.:D

[Leif Ohlsson]

Sorry, Looker, for the mix-up between threads. Just wanted to keep the information specific to rotary engines in a place where I could find it again.

Thanks Gil & Shrike for clearing up the point about all common rotaries being four-stroke, AND crankcase induction (albeit with valves). That's what got me mixed up. The listing of the Gnome as "two-stroke" at the animated engine site (http://www.keveney.com/gnome.html) thus should be disregarded. In fact, the description of the workings of the engine clearly states that it is four-stroke, Otto-type. But there is one almost two-stroke feature of the Gnome in particular, namely that it lacks external induction valves, these being located in the piston itself. (This is only seemingly a two-stroke feature, however, since such engines lack valves altogether.)

Studying the diagram and the text at the site it is clear that each stroke is half of a revolution, which means that for each cylinder there was an ignition/combustion/exhaust cycle only every second revolution, and an induction/compression cycle every other.

The exhaust cycle is very long. According to the text the valve opens well before dead bottom, and the exhaust cycle then lasts for 3/4 of a revolution, until almost dead top again.

Here's the animated sketch again, to save you going back and forth:

http://www.keveney.com/img/gnome.gif

This photo (http://www.texas-flyer.com/xc/img/RogersPlace16.jpg) demonstrates what the internals of the engine looked like:

http://www.texas-flyer.com/xc/img/RogersPlace16.jpg

Rotary engines, then, exhausted for a major portion of every second cycle inside the cowling, and the fumes were just ventilated out at the bottom to be of least nuisance. The question arises, why this particular positioning of the fixed point? Perhaps the reason is not so much the exhaust problem, but the induction cycle. But why would it be preferable to have induction cycle starting at the bottom of every second revolution?

Leif

[Don Boose]

This continues to be an exceptionally informative (as well as fascinating and exciting) thread.

I had always understood the basic principle of the rotary engine (the entire engine revolving around the crankshaft), but now I am beginning to understand the bigger picture.

Many thanks, Leif.

Don

[dansls1]

Having the fixed point offset gives you a built in cam without having to have a precision piece giving offset holes. If I had to guess, that's why it was designed as such.

[Gil]

The following page at the Aircraft Engine Historical Site has a PDF writeup on the Gnome Type N engine:

Rotaries (http://www.enginehistory.org/rotaries.htm)

Selection of the Top Dead Center allows easy reference for maintenance.

The cowl was part of the exhaust system.

+Gil

[shrike]

The cowl was part of the exhaust system.



It also made an effort to contain all of the oil sprayed out in the total-loss lubrication system.
Castor oil vapours had...ummm...indelicate effects on the pilots

[birder]

This is a great entertaining thread, on a number of topics, and had me worrying that I've been drawing props backwards...oops . Have you folks seen Bruce's prop and Azani engine?

[B-Manic]

This is a great entertaining thread, on a number of topics, and had me worrying that I've been drawing props backwards...oops . Have you folks seen Bruce's prop and Azani engine?

Bruce's prop and engine are excellent, unfortunately no recent progress on the Bleriot though.

[Gil]

As Shrike mentioned, there were more than just a few off field landings to answer the call..., some in enemy territory resulting in prisoner of war status for those caught in the act...,

I think it's time to mention that the frame between the engine compartment and the fuselage proper is called the "firewall". Its name really describes its function...,

+Gil

[Don Boose]

And then there is the old tale that pilotrs of rotary-engined aircraft carried two bottles to counter the effects of the castor oil: one of brandy and one of milk of magnesia. If one didn't work, then they tried the other.

Possibly something invented by Arch Whitehouse, but a good story.

Don

[birder]

Good one!:D

[Leif Ohlsson]

So I did what Shrike suggested, went back to the drawing-board, and analyzed the Russian drawing of a sabre-shaped prop for the Sopwith Triplane. The result was two print sheets with 40 prop parts. More about how to go about drawing these in the next post. Here are photos of the result:

1. The bottom part is extremely thin, almost impossible to cut out, which is why two "flags" at the rear were kept when cutting it out. The additional (good!) idea was that this would ensure enough of stability for a proper alignment of all following parts. (Similar flags at the leading edge would have been very difficult to cut out, once additional layers are hiding the print lines.)

2. The outlines of the part to follow is printed on each part, to enable proper positioning of each layer. Seemed like a good idea, but it's not good enough. I have an idea for how to improve this. Note here, that at this stage of the assembly the bottom flags have been cut out. Note also my mistaken belief that, for once, I could be a bit liberal when applying white glue. Don't repeat that mistake - thick layers of white glue is terrible to sand; it just turns into some rubbery black goo.

3. The finished prop could be handled while the mass of white glue still was semi-dry. Here I am trying to align it by pressing down the rear edges. I have an idea for how to get away from this problem, which will also solve (I hope) the alignment problem of each individual part.

4. In the end I resorted to clamping the prop between two scrap wood parts, with additional scrap pieces pressing down the trailing edges.

5. The prop was left like this over night, awaiting sanding.

6. With the excess amount of white glue I had applied, sanding was not pleasant. Here, I've got to the stage where one layer of matt varnish (I am still sticking to the water soluble variety) has been sanded down completely. 180-grade dry/wet sanding paper is used at this stage. The varnish sucks into the paper and hardens exposed edges, which is very beneficial (as opposed to the gooey white glue; the thin black lines you see is white glue turned gooey black).

7-8. The varnishing-sanding procedure was repeated until the result was acceptable. I think I put on three coats, and sanded down the last one very slightly with 320-grade dry sanding paper. By now the trailing edge is very thin, and apt to knicking. The profile is much thinner than the first attempt, which is what I wanted. The overall feeling is one of slightly bendable plastic.

9-10. Final shots for good measure. I am pleased, since the prop is such a prominent part of the aircraft of this era, and it could make or break the final impression of the model. The curvature of the prop certainly is beautiful. Some imperfections at the backside rear edge remain.

[Leif Ohlsson]

As Shrike warned, there is no way to arrive at the proper shape of each part other than by sheer pencil work. The only difference is that I made it in Illustrator (other graphic programmes, of course, will do just as nicely - as long as you can make vector curves, and layer them properly).

Image one:

1. The pixel drawing of the Triplane prop from Airwar.ru (http://www.airwar.ru/other/draw/sopwithtri.html) was imported and enlarged so that the profile got a thickness 10 mm thick. This is for ease of layering. The final result will be reduced to proper diameter at the final stage.

2. Outlines in red are drawn for front, side, and profiles.

3. Guides for ten layers added. The side view is used for determining the top position of each layer and sublayer.

4. Within each layer (1 mm thick), guides for 4 sublayers are drawn. Vertical guides are positioned at each sublayer (1/4 mm thick), and the points on the baseline of the profile noted. This is where the points for each part should be. Here, the positions for sublayer 4-1, at profile no. 4 from the hub is illustrated.

Image two: This process is iterated for each of the five profiles. The result is one sublayer. Then the whole thing is started over for the next sublayer, and is iterated 40 times to get the proper shapes for 40 layers. As the layers add up, you start seeing the shape of the whole thing emerging. Each layer was adjusted manually slightly along the blade to get proper shape and sequencing distance, and more so close to the hub and at the top of the blade, where the sum of the outlines determine the final outline of the prop.

Finally, the contours of the layer above the one at hand were copied, and cropped. This is to provide guides for glueing on each part. Every such composite part was then copied, rotated 180 degrees, and positioned properly (not illustrated).

Then the whole drawing is copied and reduced to proper 1/16 scale diameter (which seems to be 159 mm, judging from several drawings).

Now, and only now, each part is copied and positioned on to the two parts sheets. The idea is to print every other set of four sublayers on different shades of brown to simulate layering.

The two parts sheets are shown only for illustration. If I can manage, I'll redesign them slightly to include tabs midway out in order to help alignment and solve the need to press down on the trailing edge. This will also eliminate the need for printed guidelines of the next layer on each part. These tabs will build up to thin columns, which should be relatively easy to cut/sand away, once assembled and dry.

The idea is that this will enable pressing down the assembly evenly along the blade while drying. Without such tabs pressing down is impossible, due to the curved side profile. (C.f. the side view; this flat back/curved front side profile is as faithfullly replicated as the sabre shaped front profile, the varying profiles along the blade, and the increasing angle of attack along the blade.)

In addition, "flags" at the rear end will be added for every second main layer (every eigth sublayer). The idea here is to glue 8 parts at a time, as subassemblies which can be pressed down while drying, for a final assembly of 5 such subassemblies. The "flags" will of course be cut away before this final assembly.

With a more sparing application of white glue, this should make for a much easier & more fail-safe build of this prop.

[pahorace]

Thanks again Leif,
it's a tutorial from master.
I had imagined that construction of the propeller but now I see for the first time the steps.
The propeller is quite extraordinary.
Thanks for sharing.

Regards
Orazio.

[B-Manic]

Great tutorial Leif and a fantastic result. This process would work with ships screws as well but would be very challenging given their relative size.

[Leif Ohlsson]

Thanks guys, I'm glad you like it too! And thanks Gil for the link to the Engine History site (http://www.enginehistory.org), and their section for rotaries (http://www.enginehistory.org/rotaries.htm). It was a gold mine. Marvellous to listen to the Gnome sound (http://www.enginehistory.org/Before1925/Gnome/gnome.mp3). Since the Gnome didn't have a throttle, this would be the actual sound in flight. Much like a two-stroke on idle, right?

The lack of a throttle would be the reason for the flying techniques of, for example, early Sopwith Pups with Gnome Monosaupape engines: Climb to ten thousand feet or something like that, then glide down; climb again, etc. Formation was held by adjusting mixture for small change of rpms (very much like un-throttled model engines, that!). And landing approaches were made by "blipping" the engine (switching the ignition on and off with the blip switch on the stick), much like the sound at the beginning of the sound file, I imagine.

But try "blipping" heavier rotaries... the gyroscopic effects must have been spectacular. Which of course is one of the reasons for the Camel killing so many fresh pilots while coming in for landing or even just generally flying about - despite the fact that the Clerget and other rotaries did have proper throttles.

I thought for a while that the reason for why the Gnome didn't have a throttle was that they had the intake valve being situated in the piston. But that isn't it; the reason is that the fuel was injected through the crankcase. The name "Monosaupape" ("single valve") does in fact refer to a later development (I'm reading from the piece about rotaries you can download at the Engine history site), in which they got rid of the piston valve (it created a great many maintenance problems), replacing it with intake openings in the crankcase instead, uncovered by the piston. The cycle is quite complicated, much more so than I understood earlier, and interested should read up on it in the Gnome Monosaupape fact sheet (http://www.enginehistory.org/Gnome%20Monosoupape.pdf) (pdf).

As for props, it turns out The Engine History site has a section for propellers (http://www.enginehistory.org/propellers.htm), too! Have a look at these very instructive photos and note the clever tool for measuring angle of attack along the blade in the last photo. Also, I count nine layers. Stands to reason if you want a layer of hardwood top & bottom. Oh, well, close enough. Ten layers of four parts each does result in proper scale thickness, which was the main thing for me.

[birder]

The alternate colors make a realistic wood appearance, Leif, very pretty. Nice work on the design end as well!

[Gil]

Hi Leif,

The engine, cowl and prop are taking on the proportions of an ancient Norse Saga...,

I agree with you that something as visually obvious as the propeller requires more attention to its detail. The results of your efforts have captured that eye appeal. Nice to have achieved such a desirable effect. Congratulations!

+Gil

[CharlieC]

Something I tripped over - this thread has some quite nice detail images of the Gnome engine.

Gnome Rotary Engine run - The Aerodrome Forum (http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/aircraft/27865-gnome-rotary-engine-run.html)

This engine was rated at 16 pints of oil per hour (9.6 liters) - no wonder the WW1 pilots had permanent diarrhea.

Regards,

Charlie

[shrike]

Another little tidbit on the Gnome. The cylinders are machined from single solid piece of steel, fins and all. The original billet weighed around 45kg, and the finished item around 4.

[lee4752]

6. With the excess amount of white glue I had applied, sanding was not pleasant. Here, I've got to the stage where one layer of matt varnish (I am still sticking to the water soluble variety) has been sanded down completely. 180-grade dry/wet sanding paper is used at this stage. The varnish sucks into the paper and hardens exposed edges, which is very beneficial (as opposed to the gooey white glue; the thin black lines you see is white glue turned gooey black).

I may be showing my ignorance here, but could the matt varnish be used as an adhesive instead of the white glue?

[Leif Ohlsson]

I was thinking about that, too, after the fact. Don't know yet, but sure worth trying sometime! - L.

[lee4752]

Probably would require a little extra pressure while drying to stay flat as well as to insure proper bonding. I can't imagine how many layers you could bond simultaneously with varnish, assuming you can. Polyurethane might work as well. It would require a very well ventilated area, though. Based on the small amount of furniture finishing I've done, thin coats of polyurethane dry quickly and set up rock hard. It sands very well

[Gil]

Acrylic modeling paste is made from acrylic varnish, whiting (Marble Dust or Calcium Carbonate) and methyl cellulose. A thin paste would have improved sanding properties over using straight PVA. In fact, adding whiting to PVA would improve the sandability of the glue. Both pastes also act as a filler resulting in a much smoother near polished surface. Using an acrylic paint to color the paste would allow an an additional layer effect in the laminated composite...,

Whiting can be found at ceramic supply shops (powdered Gypsum (Calcium Carbonate) will also work though I prefer Whiting).

+Gil

[Leif Ohlsson]

So what this means is, that I could make up my own glue, sort of, to be used for things that are to be sanded. Acrylic varnish + whitening of some kind + acrylic paint (optional)? Intriguing... - L.

[Gil]

Hi Leif,

Whiting, Marble Dust, Calcium Carbonate are some of the more commonly used names. Wikipedia has a good write up here:

Calcium carbonate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_carbonate)

It's worth the read...,

P.S. I used to have 5 lbs. - it's now down to about 3.5...,

+Gil

[Leif Ohlsson]

The photos below are of a replica Camel from New Zealand. They were found using an absolutely fantastic new search engine for pictures, namely Cooliris (http://www.cooliris.com/). It is an addition to Firefox (and some other browsers). [/URL]

I can recommend it unreservedly. Took me one run, Google searching for Camel photos, to get the hang of it. And what a ride it was. The photos below I had not found in spite of many previous traditional Google searches for Camel photos.

How can I possibly encourage you more to get this addition? I don't know. But do get it.

Leif

PS. The source for the photos is: [URL="http://flickr.com/photos/jimery/559921803/in/set-72157600378914834"]Sopwith Camel replica on Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.cooliris.com/) Note that you can download photos in much larger size than shown at this starting page.

Does the prop strike a chord?

[Gil]

Leif,

Thanks! What an improvement for the visual search function. It actually fun now!

+Gil

[B-Manic]

Thanks for the Cooliris tip Leif. It is the best thing I have seen in browser add-ons in years. Surfing the way it should be !!!

[Leif Ohlsson]

I was not quite happy with the irregular shape of the layers in the analysis of the prop from the Airwar.ru site. So I went back to the vector file, and harmonized the profiles of all the 40 layers.

The next thing to improve was a method of alignment which would be more foolproof. I had been thinking about small tabs, in the same position for all layers. So I added those.

Next addition was a couple of "flags" for every eigth layer. These will form the start for five piles. For final assembly of the five piles into a prop, the flags will be cut away, but the tabs spared until final sanding.

Then I thought about the vast majority of aircraft model builders, who might want a really good vintage prop in that scale. So I made one version with 20 layers, which would render the appropriate thickness. Basically, two consecutive layers were collapsed onto each other.

The first illustration shows what the two versions look like now. Much nicer.

For the 1/33 version, the parts are so small that they all fit into one sheet. However, for achieving the desired laminated effect, this sheet will have to be printed in two copies on paper of different wood-coloured shades.

The result is enough parts for making two regular two-bladed props - or one four-bladed. So I added a few extra parts for starting a four-bladed prop.

The 1/33 version is built in just two heaps. The first photo shows the start of one such test build for the four-bladed version (just to raise the stakes a bit). By the second photo we have reached the stage of rough sanding and addding the first layer of clear matt varnish. This, and two additional coats, are all sanded down. Hub plates painted silver are added, and in the last photo we have a finished four-bladed prop in 1/33 scale.

The original position of the tabs are still slightly visible, although the surface is quite even. I will have to work on my building skills to eliminate this effect, but in my view the tabs are absolutely necessary to achieve anything close to correct alignment.

However, if you're doubtful about this feature, just cut away the tabs, have a look at the illustration of the finished prop and judge the dislocation for each layer by eye measure only. It should work. What you lose is the intended possibility to be able to press down, in particular the trailing edge, during glueing.

The last illustration shows what the 1/33 scale parts sheet looks like. Don't use this (it is not to scale), but download the "Prop-20 parts sheet" pdf-file instead.

The prop in this sheet is good for a Sopwith Camel in 1/33 scale, and I would think most similar aircraft.

For a Vickers Vimy, the four-bladed version would probably have to be rescaled to correct diameter. This should not be a problem for any builder undertaking such a project.

Note that for a Vickers Vimy and similar British aircraft, you would also have to mirror the parts sheet, since the props rotated counter-clockwise, as seen from the pilot.

Leif

PS. This is the first and - to the best of my remembrance - the only part I've ever made in 1/33 scale. I am presently test-building the 1/16 scale two-blade version, and it feels oh, so much more comfortable...

[pahorace]

Thanks,
for sharing this great tutorial.

Orazio

[Leif Ohlsson]

Thanks Orazio! You're very kind, and encouraging. I think the 1/33 prop is alright, and that you could very well build it without the tabs. In fact, right now I would recommend it.

However, as for the big 1/16 version, trying to harmonize the curves was a BIG mistake. A test build was worse than my first attempt, which in retrospect was quite good, and I left it. There simply is no shortcut to analyzing the curves properly, like Shrike said.

So it's back to the drawing board for a final version of the big prop. But I'll get there, eventually.

Leif

[pahorace]

Yes Leif,
I have some WWI aircraft models in 1/33 and your propeller is magnificent for the purpose.
Your explanation is meticulous and precise. I follow the tread very carefully.
I love this place that has given me many answers before questions.
Thanks.

Orazio

[Leif Ohlsson]

To get things in order, at this point I'd like to say that further prop development has been collected in a separate thread on the site: Laminated props in paper (http://www.papermodelers.com/forum/design-threads/2618-laminated-prop-paper.html).

The result was props in 1/16, 1/33 and 1/72 scales. Kits of these have been uploaded into the aviation section of the downloads section (http://www.papermodelers.com/forum/downloads.php?do=cat&id=5).

I will hopefully get back to the Camel thread with the 1/16 result soon!

Leif

[Leif Ohlsson]

Meanwhile, and totally by happenstance, I discovered a wonderful source for finding about details about not only the Sopwith Camel, but several similar aircraft.

It is the "Airway Models" section at the Model Expo site (http://www.modelexpo-online.com/cgi-bin/sgsh0101.exe?SKW=Model_Airways@&FNM=08&UID=2009022613555422).

These are kits in 1/16 scale of several vintage & WWI models. The kits are exclusive, and include cast details and laser-cut wood parts. The point here is that the instructions for each model are available for download, as a teaser I suppose.

But they contain excellent material, 3D-sketches and close-up photos of the models which may very well be used for discriminating paper modelers - sometimes to greater advantage than using wood & metal, I would say!

Below I have attached a few sample pages from the Sopwith Camel instructions. From figures like these I finally deduced how the aileron control wire rigging was hooked up. Rather counter-intuitive in fact, as it turns out!

There are instructions available for the following models:

Sopwith Camel (http://www.modelexpo-online.com/cgi-bin/sgin0101.exe?FNM=00&T1=MA1030A&UID=2009022613555422&UREQA=1&TRAN85=N&GENP=)

Curtiss JN-4D Jenny (http://www.modelexpo-online.com/cgi-bin/sgin0101.exe?FNM=00&T1=MA1010&UID=2009022613555422&UREQA=1&TRAN85=N&GENP=)

Albatros DVa (http://www.modelexpo-online.com/cgi-bin/sgin0101.exe?FNM=00&T1=MA1001&UID=2009022613555422&UREQA=1&TRAN85=N&GENP=)

Nieuport 28 (http://www.modelexpo-online.com/cgi-bin/sgin0101.exe?FNM=00&T1=MA1002&UID=2009022613555422&UREQA=1&TRAN85=N&GENP=)

Wright Flyer 1903 (http://www.modelexpo-online.com/cgi-bin/sgin0101.exe?FNM=00&T1=MA1020&UID=2009022613555422&UREQA=1&TRAN85=N&GENP=)

Go download them, if any of your favourite projects are among them. The supply doesn't seem to be unending, and when a model goes out of stock, so does the opportunity to download the instructions. (It almost happened to the Camel; I was just in time.)

Leif

[dansls1]

Excellent resource - great find!

[Don Boose]

These are wonderful resources, Leif. Thanks again!

Don

[Leif Ohlsson]

While admiring Philippe Rennesson's model of the Le Rhone rotary engine, I followed the link to the original documentation for his model. And I discovered a wonderful source for very detailed engine documentaries (scroll down to "Moteurs"):

Dossiers historiques et techniques sur l'industrie aéronautique française (http://www.hydroretro.net/etudegh/index.php)

From that page I downloaded two Clerget documentaries (frontispieces attached below):

Moteurs de légende - Clerget 130 ch
http://www.hydroretro.net/etudegh/moteursdelegende_clerget130ch.pdf

La société des moteurs Clerget
http://www.hydroretro.net/etudegh/clerget.pdf

The drawing of the Clerget on the cover of the first file is the best sideview drawing I've seen (oh, well, the Wylam drawing might be better and is more complete, but this one is very clear and well suited for getting the general sizes right).

Leif

[Leif Ohlsson]

Studying the cross-section in the previous post, I am suddenly no longer quite sure at all as to which portions exactly of this engine rotated, and which did not. Note for example the ignition wires and where they attach to the crankcase. Which part here is stationary, and which rotary? The magnetos quite clearly did not rotate, and I'm pretty sure the long intake tube reaching back to the air intakes didn't either, but where is the boundary between rotating and stationary parts?

I guess concentrating on the ball bearings would help, but I got kind of lost there...

If somebody knowledgeable would find it worthwhile to outline these sections in colour or otherwise, I would find that highly valuable, as I'm sure many others would.

It would be nice to try to understand the intricacies of these rotaries a little bit better.

Leif

[shrike]

I'll take a closer look later and play with colour if i can.

The long intake pipe is an extension of the fixed crankshaft and doesn't turn.

Parts of the magneto are attached to the crankcase and do turn. Much like the magneto being built into the flywheel of a lawnmower engine.

The nearest Clerget is about 180km away, but I may have some pictures.

[Leif Ohlsson]

I started this thread by making a Vickers gun (http://www.papermodelers.com/forum/aviation/2177-experimenting-kitbashing.html#post28645), originally from a Orlik SE-5A kit. Since then I started a Sopwith Pup build (http://www.papermodelers.com/forum/marek-marathon/3047-marek-marathon-sopwith-pup-breadner-1-16-a.html) (unfinished as yet), so that single gun ended up by being dedicated for that.

Which meant building two new guns of the same kind:

http://www.papermodelers.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=52548&d=1280520813

These Orlik Vickers guns are much more difficult and laborious to make than the ones envisaged in the Maly Modelarz kit I am building. This pair took me at least four days worth of modeling time to make up. Horrible as they are in their basic functions, the Vickers make for really intriguing models, what with all their levers, and cartridge feed & discharge openings, etc.

Which actually posed an unexpected problem:

http://www.papermodelers.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=52549&d=1280520813

When all the cockpit sections were plugged together in a mockup, the instrument panel turned out to be way to much aft (faulty design I believe). The control stick had no forward leverage at all, and - worse - the pretty Vickers guns could not be mounted; there just wasn't any space for the big lever.

Makeshift solution - plug up the original recess for the panel, and move it as far forward as it will go (the tweezers are pointing at the original, plugged up, panel position):

http://www.papermodelers.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=52550&d=1280520813

I actually believe this is a more accurate position. In any case, the guns now will fit, and the control stick has some realistic space to move within. So I glued up the cockpit section (guns exempted until covering time).

Leif

[Texman]

That is some very impressive gun work Leif. Beautiful!

And, looking at the pictures of the guns in your hand, some of my builds are smaller than your single gun!

Still, awesome work.

[birder]

That is a beautiful cockpit!

[Don Boose]

Those are superb models, Leif. Do I understand that these are the Orlik guns enlarged to 1/16?

Don

[Barry]

very realistic as usual

[Gil]

Hi Leif,

Beautiful work on the Vickers! Check your PM.

Best regards, +Gil

[EricGoedkoop]

Nice to see this one resurrected, Leif.

[B-Manic]

It is nice to see all the pieces coming together Leif. With your extraordinary workmanship, this is going to be a delight to see.

BTW - I had to dig out my Orlik SE-5A kit, I did not realize the Vickers MG had so much detail. I believe you have added a bit of detail not included in the kit.

~ Douglas

[mbauer]

Hi Leif,

What a beautifull build. The props are excellent!

Personally I enjoy looking at the old props when visiting museums. Now I se they can be made from paper, wow!!

Excellent details and workmanship!

Just found this thread for the first time, great read from start to finish!

Lots of lnew stuff learned!

Thank you for sharing with us!

Best regards,
Mike Bauer

[Leif Ohlsson]

Thanks, friends

- Ray (about one of your models being smaller than one of my guns): Exactly one of the points I'm trying to get across. Small really is beautiful. But so is big, in its own ways. And for some of us the only way to go, if you want to make beautiful happen.

- Don (about Orlik guns): Yes, these are the Vickers guns from Orlik models, common to the SE-5A and Sopwith Triplane (and possibly other Orlik models), enlarged to 1/16. The original scale in this case was 1/25.

- Gil (about the position of the panel): Thanks for pointing out (in a mail) and demonstrating how there really was very little forward space for the control stick to move in the Camel. Hard to understand how that worked, particularly since the aircraft in all probability was tail-heavy, and had no stab incidence adjustment. Here's two images, one three-view, and one from the Kagero publications excellent set of drawings of the Camel:

52573 52574

It seems I was out of line when accusing the MM designer Pawel Mistewicz of a faulty design. My apologies! In any case, for this Camel the only solution was to move the panel a bit forward.

- Eric (about resurrecting this model): Thanks, that really is the biggest victory for me right now; continuing. After seeing so many beautiful builds on the site, yours not least among them, I've come to the conclusion that I can't let perfect be the enemy of good. I can't do perfection. I hope I can manage good.

- Douglas (about adding details to the guns): Yes, I believe I added a cross-hairs sighting ring, as per the Maly Modelarz model. Surprisingly easy once the idea occurred to me: Print it on overhead transparency, make a slit in the gun and stick it in, rim with a thin grey paper strip. Very satisfactory to pull that one off.

- Mike (about the props): I'm glad you like them. Have you seen this thread?: http://www.papermodelers.com/forum/design-threads/2618-laminated-prop-paper.html. You can download them in the downloads/aviation section, in scales varying from 1/72 to 1/16 (hey, that sounded really impressive, didn't it...).

Leif

[Darwin]

Leif, do you think the upscaled Camel would work to skin the Model Airways Camel (the Model Airways kit is a highly detailed basswood/metal museum-quality skeleton model in 1/16 scale)? I got the kit as a birthday gift, and want to do it with half of the model skinned and the other half bare framework.

[Leif Ohlsson]

Darwin,

What an intriguing idea! The only thing for sure is that the Maly Camel is just about the only one there is right now which would be up to the job. In the computer, I have laid it on top of the Kagero drawing of the full-scale, and it is a good fit. Pawel Mistevicz bears every mark of being a good designer.

How about using a 1/16 scale scan as a "first approximation"? Upscaling, cutting out parts for the half you want to skin, and trying them on. Note the discrepancies, and what needs to be done. Then go into the computer and do what's needed, in vector or bitmap. You already have the parts scanned, so even a complete redraw and recolouring (getting rid of the pattern from scanning the printed version) would be comparatively feasible.

Since the Model Airways kit is such an exquisite model, it might be worth the trouble.

One more thing - you need to consider an inner pattern/texture, at least for the fuselage. So, in fact you need to make the cover double-layered. Clear doped linen with outside khaki shining through - quite a challenge!

Leif

[Don Boose]

It will be interesting to see how this develops. It is a logical extension of the process of using paper models to provide skins for stick-and-tissue scale flying models.

Don

[Darwin]

It sounds encouraging. Looks as if I have myself another winter project on my plate.

[Leif Ohlsson]

Are you planning something like this? Fine Art Models - Sopwith Camel (http://www.fineartmodels.com/pages/product.asp?content_area=3&sub_area=12&product_area=98)

http://www.papermodelers.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=52604&d=1280597949

I envy you your winter project! What a perfect combination of paper modeling and "regular" modeling; a sort of seamless spectrum. - Leif

[mbauer]

Hi Darwin,

For what it is worth, when I do my really big models and use ribs inside the wings, the only way I could skin them was to start at the wing tips.

Used to build balsa models instead of plastic. I tried the balsa covering methods at first until trying just starting at the tips. The cardstock or paper (used regular paper at first) would warp the structure, until I did the tips at first.

Another thing is you will need to glue the top and bottom sides at the same time (a big reason why I use symmetrical airfoils).

Look forward to seeing the build!

Lief, this really is an amazing build, glad you're back working on it!

First thing I thought of this morning was the engine builds! and then you say perfection is not attainable, well in my mind you have reached it!

After watching mythbusters do a duck-tape cannon, the only thing you're missing to get your machine guns to work is the ammo!!!

I do agree with your comment about big being beautiful too!

Besides; I can't see like I used to, and after a mountain bike accident in 2004 where I broke both hands, my dexterity isn't what it used to be either!

To get models to fly, you need a surface area that will lift the heavier cardstock, small models fly like a rock, but bigger ones work great!

The only real problem with big models is how much ink it takes to paint them!!

Best regards,
Mike Bauer

[Leif Ohlsson]

The Maly Modelarz Sopwith Camel by Pawel Mistewicz built in this thread, and the Sopwith Pup by Marek (http://www.papermodelers.com/forum/marek-marathon/3047-marek-marathon-sopwith-pup-breadner-1-16-a-7.html), both rescaled from 1/33 to 1/16, are now brought up to par. The Camel has got its fuselage framework, and the enginge mounted, same as the Pup:

http://www.papermodelers.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=52840&d=1280868955

Can I just say a few words about the framework again? It is 2mm+ thick, as per requirement when doubling the scale. It is a sandwich of the 200g paper (heavy, ca 0.25mm thick) which I use to print parts on in this scale, and a middle layer of ca 2mm foam, which I get from the artists shop. They get it as protection to the large paper sheets they sell, and it will get torn up and thrown away. So when I need a refill I go there and ask if they have any in the trashbin. As likely as not they have.

Now the point to this rambling is that it is such a beautiful pleasure to cut. The knife goes through the sandwich like butter (well, almost), and the cut is sharp and crisp. Most straight cuts need only one draught with the knife, curves seldom more than two cuts. Takes white glue wonderfully well, both when laminating (under pressure of course), and when glueing up parts.

When I think of how I struggled with 2mm cardstock, I rejoice. I really would like to be able to convert some more people in need of this technique - it is so good.

Enough already. The engine is spinning as it should:

http://www.papermodelers.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=52841&d=1280868955

You will notice from the previous photo that the axle is sturdier for the Camel than for the Pup. That is because the Pup served as a prototype, with a simpler engine and plastic tubes only.

The Camel has a weighted engine (see this post (http://www.papermodelers.com/forum/aviation/2177-experimenting-kitbashing-3.html#post30117)) which is actually quite heavy, so it needs precision bearings and a heavy duty axle made of (from inside out): 2mm piano wire, glued inside 3mm alu tube, then the engine mounted on to a 4mm alu tube rotating over the 3mm tube + 2mm wire. The fixed bearing in the fuselage runs between the first two formers and is likewise a piece of 4mm alu tube. Lubrication is petroleum jelly (Vaseline) smeared on initially. It will have to do for the model's life expectancy...

Finally, I couldn't keep myself from a mockup with the prop and cowling. Not glued as yet, of course:

http://www.papermodelers.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=52842&d=1280868955

Anybody curious about the prop, see this thread: http://www.papermodelers.com/forum/design-threads/2618-laminated-prop-paper.html

I may withdraw for a while now and prepare wings and other stuff. Or perhaps build a bit on the Pup. We'll see.

Leif

[mbauer]

Truely amazing Leif!

The only other place I've seen a rotary spinning was the Air And Space Museum in Washington DC.

Now I know your secret! Superhuman with a third hand to help with builds and photo taking!

My story and I'm sticking to it....
Best regards,
Mike Bauer

[Leif Ohlsson]

Nothing extraterrestrial here, Mike. A small tripod and the self-exposure option will allow you to get your hands into the picture, for better action shots. Thanks for liking the result, though!

[birder]

Very beautiful prop and engine! That is the finest prop. Also the foamcore is great idea for thick formers, it doesn't comprimise the wonderful "lightness" of card (which is so well suited to aircraft):)

[Gil]

Withdrawing after tantalizing us all with these gems of the art? ..., Does this mean that you have ideas that need to be worked out before debuting them to the World?...,

I think you've got me convinced that this is the proper scale to show the "stuff" of the paper modeling art. The detail has so much more "Pop" that's so difficult or near impossible to achieve at the standard scale of 1:33.

Best regards, +Gil

[Leif Ohlsson]

Nah, not withdrawing in that sense, just general housecleaning, leaving more stuff at the Salvation Army than picking up from it, making room for bigger beds as we grow older and need our space sleeping, cutting down the TV-bench to a handier size, weeding the content of the book shelves, making a special table for the sewing machine in the space created. You know, that sort of thing.

After all, its summer. And housecleaning my own space for cardmodeling already enticed me to getting started on this again. Suddenly I got a grip of what I had, and where. Getting rid of a lot of accumulated stuff, and getting my own stuff in order, not least on the computer, created the mental space enabling me to come back, for which I am glad.

And no, I don't have any fantastic new ideas. Simply content with working out a few of those already started upon.

But I do need to think and prepare on how to go about rigging before glueing any covering parts on, or closing any wing parts. I want to try doing it properly for once, mounting rigging threads in paper covering parts first, including attachment points at the proper places, instead of trying to do it after the fact. Already members here have demonstrated how it should be done, and I'd like to learn how to do it their way. (This thread by DrLaser comes to mind first among them: http://www.papermodelers.com/forum/tutorials/6912-rigging-aircraft-tippet.html.)

Thanks for caring though!:) - L.

[Gil]

Leif,

Life is made easier when you've lightened the load...,

On rigging I recommend that you look into single stranded thread. I've used light monofilament nylon fishing line and found that single stranded silk thread used in embroidery to be far easier to work with. It takes color, paint and glue well and can be warm air tautened once installed. I use YLI brand and have separated a single fiber out for some applications.

Best regards, +Gil

[Tapcho]

Leif (and others too), are you familiar with this (http://www.flickr.com/photos/landoni/sets/72157604984202028/)? I've found this technique very usefull with bigger scale plastic planes of the era. I think the main issue is how to produce the turnbuckles and other details in the final rigging because in this scale (1/16th I believe) those are need to be seen. Microtubes or copper wire or something else, I don't know what your plans are but I'm eagerly waiting your solution.

Tappi

[Leif Ohlsson]

Tappi,

- that was a great source, and I thank you heartily! Saved all pertinent photos, and will study. I attach a few, just to promote the source, WWI Aircraft rigging cables & turnbuckles (http://www.flickr.com/photos/landoni/sets/72157604984202028/).

Initially I was hoping to get away with loops of rigging wires as recipients, and tying the long ends of silk rigging wire to this in a way that would simulate turnbuckles.

For really high-class jobs, I have been looking (just looking so far) at some kind of plastic wire used for making necklaces and such, in combination with shrink tubes. Don't know yet how small dimensions shrink tubes come in.

I was hoping to find some reasonable middle of the road method without going into extreme scale detailing.

In any case, Tappi, your site was really helpful!

Leif

[Tapcho]

There's a solution to that also: regular cotton stick has a hollow plastic tube that acts like plastic sprue when heated. Just pull after heating the tube and you get microtube the easy way. I think there was a photo of this too in the picture set.

[Bomarc]

I posted this a few months ago if it helps:

http://www.papermodelers.com/forum/tips-tricks/8034-turnbuckles-rigging.html

Mike

[Leif Ohlsson]

Thank you Mike, it does help, and I hadn't seen it. So it was required 1.0.1. rigging reading for me!

Just collecting all the good sources in on place:

• WWI Aircraft rigging cables & turnbuckles (http://www.flickr.com/photos/landoni/sets/72157604984202028/) - contains photos and instruction sketches of many methods, some of them collected from sources below, others original. Also many photos of WWI era rigging details, measured scale drawings of turbuckles, and original material. By Jim Landon.

• How to buckle (http://www.bobsbuckles.co.uk/how_to_buckle.html) - a section of the Bob's Buckles (http://www.bobsbuckles.co.uk/index.html) site (British), with options to buy ready-made details. Very useful tips on how to rig small scale models, from 1/48 up, mostly involving monofilament rigging wire, and small diameter steel wire for making turnbuckles.

• DH2 Rigging Guide (http://www.bobsbuckles.co.uk/dh2_rigging_guide.html) - a beautifully produced, detailed pdf instruction by Tim West on how to rig a model of the DH2. Very complicated rigging pattern! Provided by Bob's Buckles.

• Rigging Scale Aircraft (http://web.mac.com/eindecker/Modeler_Diaries/Modelers_Diary/Entries/2010/3/30_Rigging_Scale_Aircraft.html) - Another guide, focusing on monofilament, small diameter plastic tubing, and small diameter wire loops. By Scott Libis.

This is all good, thank you for pointing them out to me. I should have known them already from your original post, had I been a more diligent forum reader.

Leif

PS. Thanks again, Tappi - I saw the instruction sketches on how to draw out cotton sticks to sprue tubes. Just didn't think I could do it, so I skipped that part. Perhaps unwisely.

[Bomarc]

I miss a lot of posts too Leif, so we're in good company. I'm glad my old post was of use. Some more links that might be useful to add to your list:

This company has a huge selection of micro/hypodermic tubing, tiny nuts and bolts, and a variety of tiny things a scale modeller could make use of:

SmallParts.com: The Hardware Store for Researchers and Developers (http://www.smallparts.com/)

Another source of tiny threaded bolts, nuts, etc. a modeller would love:

Scale Hardware, the world's finest scale model fasteners (http://www.scalehardware.com/)

I've order from Small Parts before and can attest to stellar service. Been meaning to order from Scale Hardware, have yet to, but I hear good things about them.

Mike

[Leif Ohlsson]

Thanks Mike!

Funny thing is, once you realize you need something particular, every place you turn to seem to contain pertinent stuff. I just idly checked by the Aerodrome Forum (http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/) after having read this, and lo and behold, here's a fresh posting leading to a number of additional sources:

Need source for micro tubing (pipes) in USA (http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/models/48583-need-source-micro-tubing-pipes-usa.html) - contains a number of links to US sources for micro tubing and similar for you guys over there. Plus a link to further sources:

Shrink tubing as rigging material (http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/492536-post1.html) - what it says, with links where to buy from in the US.

Leading on from this to the Wingnut (http://www.ww1aircraftmodels.com/) models site, which is outstanding 1/32 plastic models of the aircraft renovated by their full-size New Zeeland big brother company. Many, many useful manual and stuff for any scale builder, not least paper. How about these:

Making turnbuckles - Attaching riggin to turnbuckles - Making eyelets for wing rigging - Drilling the brass tube to a larger size (http://www.ww1aircraftmodels.com/page8.html)

Rigging WW1 aircraft models (http://www.ww1aircraftmodels.com/page6.html)

Here's what it looks like in 1/32:

http://www.papermodelers.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=52960&d=1280995232

This is NOT what I want to do. I know it is possible, and it is a joy to behold, but I was hoping for something that would be a little closer to an average builder wanting to create the impression of turnbuckles, rather than an exact replica of them.

Leif

[Bomarc]

Wingnut Wings kits were quite the sensation among the WWI modeling crowd when the first kits of the series hit the streets last year. The model company is owned by (Sir) Peter Jackson, famous movie director/producer. Apparently he has a huge WWI aviation collection, and is quite the buff:

Wingnut Wings Preview (http://www.hyperscale.com/2009/reviews/kits/wingnutwings32002reviewjf_1.htm)

Since he's undoubtedly quite wealthy and has a true passion for the subject, Sir Peter can pump the required capital into a model company that produces the high quality kits Wingnut Wings produces without fear of it being a money loser. As it is, I think WW is doing quite well....

The turnbuckles in the pic above are really spectacular, but I wonder, since the scale you're working in is double the size of that Bristol, wouldn't a similar level of detail be required as a minimum in your model? Seems that 1/16th scale would be a natural to take advantage of some of the tiny hardware available in all those links above (and probably a lot easier to make than in 1/32nd scale).

Regardless, your work displayed in this thread is nothing short of exquisite, and more importantly consistent in it's detail, so I've no doubt you'll develop a suitable turnbuckle for you project. I'll just default to my signature below, please to continue....

Mike

[EricGoedkoop]

This is NOT what I want to do. I know it is possible, and it is a joy to behold, but I was hoping for something that would be a little closer to an average builder wanting to create the impression of turnbuckles, rather than an exact replica of them.

Yes indeed. I feel that a lot of modelers tend to overdo this stuff. The WNW Biff is a good example - while technically correct the hardware stands out like a proverbial sore thumb, to me. When viewed at a moderate distance, the turnbuckles on a real aeroplane are simply not as distinctly visible as they are on the model:

http://www.airmuseumsuk.org/airshow/2003/Shut030823/800/images/025%20Bristol%20F.2b%20Fighter.jpg

http://www.papermodelers.com/forum/attachments/aviation/52960d1280995232-experimenting-kitbashing-rudder_x_2.jpg

What we're after is a finished model that looks like the real thing, and I don't think the rigging on this example accomplishes that. It's too much of a good thing.

Getting back to the Camel, here's a photo that shows the attachment of the flying wires and strut cross-bracing:

http://www.wwi-models.org/Photos/Bri/SopCamel/Thornhill/Camel%2010.jpg

In your scale, Leif, I think it would be best and relatively (!) simple to make the brackets from two layers of cardstock laminated with white glue. They'll be durable enough to drill tiny holes through for the wires, which I would make from 50wt filament silk thread. Simply tying the thread through the holes in the bracket and securing the knot with a bit of glue would suffice - for me, at least. I'd further recommend using small diameter (maybe around .014") straightened wire cut to size for the strut cross-bracing and landing gear bracing - even at 1/16th I think those would be a bear to attach and tighten.

http://www.wwi-models.org/app/album/Acn.php?base=%2FPhotos%2FBri%2FSopCamel&hdr=Sopwith+Camel&picInx=50

[Leif Ohlsson]

What we're after is a finished model that looks like the real thing, and I don't think the rigging on this example accomplishes that. It's too much of a good thing.

Mirrors my thought as well, Eric. Thanks also for the concrete tips on how the Camel rigging could be accomplished. While not familiar with the measures of silk wire ("50wt" and such), I have got several spools of sewing silk in hues resembling various degrees of rust on wire, although I have not really come up with anything meriting an extensive use of them until now.

I agree with the laminated card approach. Although for strength, I was thinking rather about strands of rigging wire glued from the inside of the part (before mounting) and secured with a small piece of card on the backside, respectively a small loop of rigging wire at the other end, secured in the same manner.

If an external metal fixture was used (which was not always the case) this could be simulated by your laminated card idea, although this would be for looks, not for real fixing or tying. I'm not sure I'll do that on the Camel at all. If I think it starts getting over the top, I'll try to abstain and put that idea on the shelf for the future.

For rudder horns and the like, though, I will use the idea also for function, albeit strengthened with one layer of overhead foil between the outer printed layers. Takes a small drilled hole very well.

I'll think about the 0.3-0.4mm straightened wire for the cross braces. That particular dimension bracket fits very well with the plastic-coated jewel-making wire I brought home from the arts & crafts shop today. It's 0.35mm diameter, looks like a wire and comes in brass, black or steel appearance. I got the steel one. It looks, oh, so pretty, but I have just unpacked it, not even felt it through my fingers yet. Will get back with a report on how it seems to behave.

Leif

[EricGoedkoop]

The only thing I don't like about attaching rigging to the inside of skin parts before assembly is that it seems like it would make finishing the wings and attaching them quite a bit more difficult, what with the lines cluttering things up. I've never tried it, though, so maybe not.

A note about the silk thread - make sure what you have is filament and not stranded. Filament silk thread is spun from very long single fibers and shows little to no fuzz. Stranded thread is made up of short fibers spun together and doesn't look nearly as nice.

[opalmox]

I came across this while searching for some tips and additional information for my Sopwith Tripe. Lief, you are certainly a master at this craft, and the various tips and research that you have put into this one translate directly into what I'm working on in the Tripe, and you've sent my head spinning with additional thoughts ideas, and considerations... I'm just glad that I decided a long while back to do mine in 1/24, as it seems to be a happy medium between the standard 1/33 and the 1/16th scale.

I look forward to seeing your progress, and the finished model of your camel, and I see that I have a lot of room for improvement in my modeling, and techniques.

[Zathros]

I think the patina and or weathering and sometimes, the paint on them is what makes the turnbuckles blend on these older planes. I do not live too far from the Rhinebeck Aerodrome which has some of the oldest flying aircraft in the U.S, and have seen many old bi planes up close, I had the pleasure to fly in a 1929 New Standard. Your model looks like a plane that has just been rolled out of the company hanger. I might try a little experimentation with some weathering on the turnbuckles, if you really think they need it, even if just to break the shininess.

[klocko1]

nice i tried it once and it failed