Covering and walking the rails

[granpa]

Andrew Thanks for the advice, I'm looking forward to your pics. Dennis

[granpa]

[img]
http://s1086.photobucket.com/albums/j449/Dennis9516/[/img]

[granpa]

[Phugoid]

I see your problem. I've never covered a stringered fuselage with "hoops" of tissue (as per the Guillows instructions). Instead try longitudinal strips a set of stringers apart, this is slightly more time consuming, although on the flatter sides of the fuselage the strips can be two stringers wide.

Andrew

[granpa]

This is an Easy Build model that was a bad buy for me as it came with almost no instructions, never again...

[Arlo DiPasquale]

I cover the fuselage in the manner suggested on the Guillow plans. The key is to let the tissue dry, then slice off the extra with a sharp knife. This picture below is a detail of an overlap (on the vertical former) on a fuselage covered in this fashion. It does take a while, but I think its worth the extra time.

[Squishyp38]

David, you should write a book. This would be an excellent chapter title!
You could write a book telling people how to build models for static!

[Squishyp38]

David, you should write a book. This would be an excellent chapter title!
You could write a book telling people how to build models for static!

[Phugoid]

Thinking some more, the problem of covering in hoops is that you can't scallop the formers between the stringers, this does tend to give the fuselage what some people term the"starved horse look" ie definition at the formers but none at the midpoint between formers so looking like the ribs of the hungry horse. Scaloping the formers does loose some definition of the curves, but gets rid of the starved horse look (for Dave's statics he would likely add more stringers to get it back as the weight is no problem).

If you look back at the picture of the ME109 I posted, you can see a bit of the starved horse at the nose, you can also see the pattern of tissue pieces I used as he dark patches show the overlaps.

I wouldn't try covering wet with the standard tissue in the kits, it has no wet strength at all, with Esaki you can, I've never used silkspan it is too heavy for the rubber powered 'planes I build.

[ADW 123]

I might disagree phugoid. I have used the kit tissues wet before and it usually does a great job. I think it might be stronger wet than easy buoy tissue when it's wet. I use easy built tissue wet as much as u can. Just gotta be gentle

[Phugoid]

You probably have a more delicate touch than I Alex!

[Phugoid]

I've only had experience of the tissue in the smaller kits, which for me was as strong as the skin on coffee when wet...... I believe silkspan is more robust, but like I said I've never used the stuff.

[Phugoid]

It could be a limited run on the book, there are folks that produce models as good as Dave's (and better) but the bonus is they fly too!?

These are all models that took part in this year's indoor nats. They all fly, the Fairchild won this year.

What I was getting at is that you can get the quality of finish without adding the lumber, regardless of static or not....









I pinched the photos from Mike Stuarts website (I hope you don't mind Mike, or anyone the models belong to)

Andrew

[ADW 123]

phugoid... i dunno about my touch compared to yours... you build some pretty darn good looking models that even fly. I promise my FW 190 will survive the first toss... hopefully...

Mr. Duckett- I did use the kit silkspan for my hellcat. i covered everything wet except the tail bits with pretty good results. i should have added a little more wood to the rudder on the root rib that is connected to the fuse. it just wasnt enuff to withstand a little shrinkage...

on a different note

what if you Mr. Duckett, built a small scale aircraft to fly, and you phugoid, built a large scale aircraft for display. sounds like a good time if you ask me. completely oposite of what is the norm for the two of you.

[Phugoid]

Nah, sorry Alex, building a static would make me yawn! Mine become statics anyhow one they've flown a few times, there are a few exceptions like my Redwing which I fly all of the time.

I'm affraid Dave missed my point entirely, he seemed to think I was attacking what he did, which I was not even though he decided it was the right way to go to YET AGAIN use sarcastic comments, something he seems to take umbrage to himself when the tables are turned!

I'll be aiming for the finish in the photos, BOTH beautiful and flying.

On that note, I'll sign off on this thread......

Andrew