#71
|
|||
|
|||
Fantastic job. I still find that designing a card scale model is an extremely complicated task available only to real geniuses who can handle computer software and have plenty of time. Mr. Cor's designs are indeed one of the finest out there and something I appreciated very much is his very detailed building instructions, something most designers dislike and stay away from developing. They just want their models to be built by using guesswork and only by extremely experienced modelers with several years of card model building. Hope the DC-4 comes out soon.
|
#72
|
||||
|
||||
Petestein,
I will send your compliments on to Cor. Publishing will take quite some time yet - but again, worth waiting for! I expect you know his other plane models? They used to be on Ecardmodels, but they can also be ordered (both printed or as downloads) through my website. The Fokker G-1 is very special - unknown, because only twelve had been delivered to the Dutch air force when war broke out. They were very effective against the vast majority of German fighters and bombers, but only two or three survived to be captured by the enemy...
__________________
See my site (Dutch and English): https://www.zeistbouwplaten.nl/ Visit my Tumblr photo collection: https://papermodelsinternational.tumblr.com/ |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for your information.
|
#74
|
||||
|
||||
You know, the folks at the Boeing Aircraft Company may have some B-377 plans or materials. I found them pretty responsive in the past to inquiries from the public.
There are also some real live derivatives of the B-377 in existence. One might write to those air museums to see if they have any measured drawings. Three are: The Miniguppy in Tillamook, Oregon, Aero-Spacelines Mini-Guppy — Tillamook Air Museum, converted from a PanAm B377, and KC97 aerial tankers in the Air Force Museum in Dayton Ohio, and March Field Museum, in Riverside California.
__________________
Rob Tauxe, Atlanta, GA |
#75
|
||||
|
||||
Something went wrong here - see next item.
__________________
See my site (Dutch and English): https://www.zeistbouwplaten.nl/ Visit my Tumblr photo collection: https://papermodelsinternational.tumblr.com/ |
Google Adsense |
#76
|
||||
|
||||
Hello everyone,
Sorry it has been so long – both Cor and I have had a lot of other business to attend to, and of course a well earned holiday. The F7 A and B locomotives are now ready for publication (just waiting for a good cover picture). Check out my website. So the decks are now cleared for the DC4 Skymaster. In my post of April 21 I explained the verious design steps. Step 2, the 2D drawings, were finished before the summer. You may remember that a great many reference points had to be put in: the computer cannot handle a neat curve, so it has to be built up by positioning a lot of dots (the more the merrier), which are then joined – giving the impression of a neat curve. Now for step 3: converting the 2D drawings into a virtual 3D model, using a 3D app. This is a very time consuming, complex procedure, in which all the reference points of step 3 help to make the 3D ghost image. At the same time, the designer has to ‘cut up’ the model into parts which can be ‘flattened’ (the tecnical word is ‘devolved’) into the sort of shapes every builder of a paper plane model knows. Simple shapes (boxes, rings, cones) are easy; shapes with double curves take more time, and great experience. For example, think of a half ball. This can never be flattened properly, so it is changed into either a number of conical rings, or a flower with a number of petals. As I explained before: neither solution gives a perfect result, but our eyes are easily cheated into seeing a neat half ball. We accept a compromise between near-perfect and buildable. The designer is often confronted with this dilemma. After all, the computer makes near-perfection easy on paper – to the point where only top builders can actually build it… This is in fact a pet grumble of mine: great detail scares off many people who might have enjoyed paper modelling on a less exacting level… Cor often solves this problem by giving optional solutions. For instance, detailed, movable flaps and rudders can be avoided by taking the simpler, printed option. I hope the pictures will give you an idea of I have tried to explain. #17: The ends of all lines in this picture are the reference points. By joining them the 3D impression appears. Magically, in the 3D app you can move and rotate this shape anyway you like – which helps decide how to ‘flatten’ part of it. #18: Here, the fuselage has already been divided into the various parts. #19: The wing section shows that the larger the number of reference points, the better the curve looks. #20: Once this basic information has been created, our computerwizard can do almost anything wit hit – here he has created a shiny aluminium model. More next time.
__________________
See my site (Dutch and English): https://www.zeistbouwplaten.nl/ Visit my Tumblr photo collection: https://papermodelsinternational.tumblr.com/ |
#77
|
||||
|
||||
Is the DC-4 already approaching Schiphol Airport?
|
#78
|
||||
|
||||
scon10: not really, but we are making progress!
We have now reached the most difficult stage of the design:translating the curved surfaces of the 3D drawing back to 2D, flat parts. If you have lost touch, go back to the explanation about single curved parts and double curved parts. For single curved, just imagine the simple parts of the fuselage - all are just elements of a simple tube or cone. It is the parts where the designer has to suggest a double curve by adding cuts (or 'darts') that are most difficult for the designer: the darts will allow the builder to approach the correct shape. Study the first picture. The meshes come straight from the 3D picture; the more lines, the sharper the curve. Concentrate on the cockpit roof. It has been cut in two - the finished part will later simply be mirrored.The second picture shows how the mesh works. Picture 1 is just the 3D shape, broken up (or down?) into flat rectangles, which when folded along all the lines will give a fair impression of a double curve. The narrower each rectangle, the stronger the curve. Now imagine flattening (unfolding) that shape by just pushing it down on a flat surface - you will realise this will result in at least a few tears in the paper. It will be strong enough to survive very slight curves (in other words, you will manage to mage a light double curve by making use of the elasticity of the material - experienced builders will use a teaspoon for this). This is what the computer does in the second mesh. It marks the areas which will need shaping with a diagonsal line; the smaller these areas, the stroger the curves - and the need for cuts becomes visible. Enlarging this ad lib will show how wide even the small tears will have to be. The last picture shows where the designer has to make a cut (appropriately called a dart in dressmaking - ask you wife). So as I explained before, the more lovely aerodynamic curves a plane has, the more work for a designer. I expect that explains why our Skymaster is not yet appoaching Schiphol...
__________________
See my site (Dutch and English): https://www.zeistbouwplaten.nl/ Visit my Tumblr photo collection: https://papermodelsinternational.tumblr.com/ |
#79
|
||||
|
||||
This is truly the high magic of designing a curved shape from a flat surface. It goes way above my hat. But I do see the resulting shape of the cockpit roof from your design drawing, and now I can't wait when you will be on finals.....!
|
#80
|
||||
|
||||
Great looking design! Good luck Diderick!
|
Google Adsense |
|
|