Covering and walking the rails

[yellowlynn]

Dave, I was looking at the B-29 model you showed at the beginning of this thread. I was totaly amazed at the number and amount of stringers in the wings and fuselage. It is an absolute work of art.
Approximately how long has it taken you to reach that point on construction? I can hardly wait to see the final result.

Lynn

[H65 Driver]

Lynn,

Mr. Duckett completed the B-29 in 2007. You can view the entire build thread here:

http://www.virtualaerodrome.com/image_b ... &offset=24

[SteveM]

When I'm starting to build a model I first look here to see if there is a good example to follow. Should I not find what I'm looking for there then my next stop is here. Not that one is better than the other, but that one is more comprehensive and I'm more likely to find what I'm looking for.

I've built for display, rubber power, small electric RC, and large electric RC and can tell you that the flying planes are easier to build than a static model. "Why?" you ask. Well, when making a flying model a loss in scale and detail is the norm and often allowed. Most flying plane models have flying surfaces that are not to scale and only a fool builds to kit plans then claims to have an accurate model. The static builder has no such excuse, there is no reason why he/she cannot add every possible scale detail, re-size surfaces to be accurate, and ensure that the structure of the frame causes a smooth surface where called for and ribs showing where called for. Small rubber powered planes are the worst as far as accuracy goes, will often have transparent tissues on them, and they all start to look the same to me.

We all have differing levels of skill and interest in these various areas and that dictates the result. If I hate detailing a cockpit why would I spend miserable hours doing so? If my flying skills and hanger rash quickly mar any plane that I fly then why would I build to the level of those NATs planes even if I were capable of it?

A friend and co-worker was tasked by his wife to build three plastic airplanes and two Guillow's airplanes to decorate their son's bedroom. Guess where I am going to point him for pictures and tips on how to build them so they'll look nice? The skill level David displays is far above the common Guillow's modeler so his going around this forum giving help and posting photos on how he creates his models is truly a blessing to the average person (including those who only look and never create and account). We should give thanks and not nit pick that his models are not NAT winners and not capable of flight, that's not what he builds and I've yet to see anyone around here win the NATs and then show us how they did it.

[Phugoid]

Steve,

The examples I showed are generally not from kits, but from scratch. The standard is very high. To simply compete the builder has to produce documention including a three view of the aircraft and docmentary evidence of all of the features be they photo's articles etc, rib spacing on the Fairchild is exactly to scale for instance, every detail is present, and they are a far cry from anything I can achieve, a tissue finish is not an acceptable standard, deviations form the correct profile are penalised.

I know all of the guys who built the planes in the pictures You will never find any of the guys on this forum, the focus is too narrow, and to most Guillows are a bad name due to the percieved poor quality of the kits. I happen to like them, as they are cheap and simple and that's what I like building.

As far as looks are concerned Dave's beat mine hands down every time. I don't build planes like that myself, I'm not good enough and I enter the Nats in the "kit scale" competition, which obviously does allow the modifications and simplifications as per those that the kit manufacturer made originally (bigger rudder etc.....) as you mentioned. A tissue finish on these models is rewarded, as faults cannot be hidden and you have to be creative with colour etc, and the intent of the competion is to reflect the finish the kit manufacturer might have expected (if we could have got it as kids!)

I'm not critisising Daves models at all they are very very good, I didn't even mean to hold all the models I showed in the pictures up as better, although the Albatross IS perfect, there is no other word for it. It does have EVERY detail and is perfectly to scale.

My point and still my only point is that you can achieve a very good finish without using a lot of wood (because the models can fly it infers the minimum of wood, thus me shwoing the pictures). This was in response to Daves point that you need the wood to anchor the tissue, my point was that on the models that Dave showed there was already more than enough surface area to anchor it without it coming off, or causing wrinkles - if a suitable glue is used.

As for Dave personally, I Have on a numbers of occasions observed his acerbic and sarcastic responses to people sometimes asking basic questions which is not helped by the lack of structure of this forum especially for the newcomer.

I'm sure that Syzp did not think his respones were a blessing, and I can image that many find it irksome but say nothing.

[SteveM]

...the Albatross IS perfect, there is no other word for it. It does have EVERY detail and is perfectly to scale.

My point and still my only point is that you can achieve a very good finish without using a lot of wood (because the models can fly it infers the minimum of wood, thus me shwoing the pictures).

Pause for a moment and consider how he got that smooth fuselage on the Albatross. Could it be that he constructed it of sheets of solid wood as was done on the full scale D.V.? Oh, what's this, a picture of Peter Iliffe's crashed D.III.?

As for Dave personally, I Have on a numbers of occasions observed his acerbic and sarcastic responses to people sometimes asking basic questions which is not helped by the lack of structure of this forum especially for the newcomer.

I'm sure that Syzp did not think his respones were a blessing, and I can image that many find it irksome but say nothing.

You were doing so well at talking about airplane models I started thinking you were a good chap, then you started flying your colours.

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

SHOO!

[Phugoid]

I don't think we will ever agree will we?

I'm sure we are all fine fellows, however this medium is never ideal when passions and opinions rise in something we all love to do, sat in the pub, chewing the fat this would never happen.

And good bye to you too, I've no problem with you Steve, I've not been rude to you, so please do not be rude to me. I found your shoo'ing profoundly offesive, would you do that to my face?

Andrew

[Steve Blanchard]

I don't think he planked the wings.

Just saying...

[Phugoid]

He didn't as far as I know, I didn't even say that it did not have a balsa fuselage. I assume the damage was caused by it flying?

I've even seen peanuts constucted by lamitating balsa shavings to get the perfectly rounded shape, it's a technique for flying models too

Here is Wout Moermans all balsa fuselage for a peanut peashooter for instance:

[SteveM]

I don't think he planked the wings.

Now why would someone who is obviously a skilled modeler with great attention to accuracy and detail do something as moronic as plank the wings on an Albatross?! Go look at David's Sopwith Camel build log if you want to see how he would treat the wings of an aircraft with a similar wing construction as the Albatross.

[Phugoid]

WOW - super job.

[Steve Blanchard]

Steve M.
I was making a joke about the wings. I'm guessing by now you are so upset at the sight of my name you couldn't see that. The covering, even without wood under it on the wings was very smooth and clean. That was the point behind the joke and I believe this thread. Nice job on the Albatross by the way. I do agree with you about certain concessions being made for a stable flying model with great duration. In the U.S. and the FAC most of the contests are about duration and yes, we can adjust the tail surfaces to compensate but cannot ruin the scale look of the airplane. I know in the U.K. there are much more stringent rules when it comes to scale fidelity. This is just another point where we differ but don't need to be upset at each other. I prefer the type building and flying I do with the FAC. I don't enjoy indoor flying at all. I do appreciate it but it's not for me. I don't have any desire to build static models but again I can appreciate the work that goes into it. Now, Where I differ in opinion is that I don't believe you need to have any extra wood to keep a good covering job wrinkle free. Also, there have been many free flight scale models that would rival static displays (with exception of the cockpits of course. Hard to run rubber through all those dials and a pilot seat). So I prefer the balance. Good flying models that are as close as I can get them to fully dressed. Either way what I do makes me happy and what you do makes you.... well, I hope you are happy.

Steve

[SteveM]

Thanks Andrew, but I must confess that this is a static model. It is built from some old Earl Stahl plans and would have been suitable for rubber powered flight except that I covered it with some medium weight silkspan and painted with Liquitex. I also added several details that would have been left off or at least built of lighter materials if flight was desired.

If I were to build this model again for display I would at least sheet the fuselage and modify the wing rib spacings to be more accurate. She was still a favorite of mine so it is with sadness that I must report that it was severely damaged when I moved about a year ago and I opted for a final flight into the trash can rather than try to repair.

[winger]

Well you know opinions are like assholes-- everybody has one and most of them stink! I enjoy both genres of building. David's static builds are impeccable. Scigs rocks the flying world! I started building for flight , however dismal failures and frequent crashes are starting to make me think static might be the way to go. Maybe we can all just agree to disagree!!

[Phugoid]

I sort of guessed it was a static model, nevertheless my sentiments remain the same that it is (was) a fantastic piece of art.

Andrew

[meku]

Beautifully made ​​models, a lot of details, apparently flying. hmmm ............Albatross also?
Unusual