Skeleton frame vs segment build methods in aircrafts

[Boris]

Hello all

Just a question
There are two ways of building aircraft models, one by making segments with wrapping and formers and another way of making skeleton frame and then covering this frame with "panels"
To be honest, I almost hate the skeleton method.
I thought that skeleton method could help building difficult surfaces like in F-16, Su-33, F-22 and such.
Simple, round and oval shaped bodies cab easily be made from sections. And then I saw a model of MiG-9 designed in skeleton frame. But this plane has plain simple oval and round shaped fuselage. Is there a reason why need to design skeleton frame for such simple planes?
Also, Yoav Hozmi showed that even intricate shaped plane like F-16 can be designed in sections.

[Dane]

The point is exactly what you want. Whether you want to get the result or enjoy the process. The second question is how close to the original you want to build the model. There are two extremes, from a cube model to a museum-quality model. The choice is yours.

[Boris]

My point is that many models could be made using sections method and these will be very close to original. See the Phantom and the F16 by Yoav.
If we're talking about tubular fuselages, there is no reason making these using the skeleton frame method. The tubular planes will look better if made using sections method

[Dane]

My first paper model had been made this way. And many others are the same. It was more than 40 years ago. But an engineer who is inside me whispers: I want something new.

[murphyaa]

The engineer in me wants to design models as simply as possible. If people didn't demand formers, I wouldn't even use them. But now that I do, I tend to stick in whatever is needed to help support the skin. In a few of my helicopter models, that means a skeleton in the nose. Or was it in the closet...dunno where that pesky skeleton went.

[Dane]

:-)
It depends on your intention. Whether you make a business or you want to develop models for different skill levels or ages modelers all these methods have a right to exist. As for me, to build models the one same way more than 40 years is pretty boring for me. I don't have enough will for this. :-)

[scon10]

For larger scale models, the skeleton or frame and panel method does have its merits. I once build a DC-6B scale 1:50 with that method. see pic, where you can see the frames, longerons and the plating.

[Boris]

Maybe I was doing something wrong, besides letting the skeletons out, but I tried building models with skeleton frame. I could never make the parts fit correctly.
Are there any tips and tricks in building the skeleton way?
In section way, if you miss the former placement by 1 mm, usually nothing serious happens. This is not correct for skeleton type.

[Dane]

Boris you are right. :-) The main task of skeleton method of model's assembling is the invention of a way to make good and true scale parts fit. This is a task for paper engineers, isn't it?

[Boris]

Dane, I think it is possible to make section based model of tubular models be very exact and fit drawings.
Using the skeleton for tubular planes seems for me real overkill.
Again, IMHO