Trev

Sorry I'm getting too much off topic, but I just wanted to include this method for capping scale ribs.
One of the expert builders over at rcscalebuilder used it on his proctor Nieuport 28 and I think it's quite brilliant! (hope he doesn't mind it being featured here)

Sure wish I'd thought of that!

abufletcher

Trev, very nice idea! Actually, this airfoil looks very close to the one for the Pfalz. Not too terribly thin. Did you have any problems getting consistency BETWEEN sets of ribs? I seem to remember that you were using 3mm ply which would be something like 1/16 inch for those of us in the non-metric modeling world?

BTW, I checked at the local hardware store (generally well stocked) and while they have thin "veneer" (more like 1/8" which would be about right for fuse formers) it's not really suitable for structural parts since it's just some pretty bits of very thin wood ssandwiching over some crumbly wood in the middle. Still, I might practice some building techniques with it.

Trev

For the awfully thin E.III ribs and capping I used 1mm ply (1/26th inch??).

I believe that is just about right if you're modeling in the range of 1/6 - 1/5 scale. Of course it also depends very much on the rib thickness and chord, cutouts ect..
If I'm not mistaken, the 1/4 scale proctor kits use even thinner (1/32 inch?) ply ribs. Consider that they get their full strenght once capped.
Some builders actually go the trouble to stain the ribs prior to assembly for a very nice antique wood appearance.

The thin ply they sell over here (1 - 0.4 mm) is called aircraft ply and is usually of very good quality with at least 5 or 7 laminates.
If you don't want to use conventional balsa construction, then ribs made of thin aircraft ply are a good alternative, save for the trouble it takes to make them.
I'm not sure about veneer, but if the middle does crumble away you could be in for a bit of frustration when making thin parts.

Consistency wasn't so much a problem after I messed on or two ribs/ the lightening holes are not as important as the outline/ no one will see them once the models covered anyway

abufletcher

Trev, what materials did you use for your spars, and leading and trailing edges? I'm assuming you put is all together with CA. Any reason to use anything else?

Trev

For spars and TE I used spruce (2 x 7 mm). The front spars are also 'boxed' in with 0.4 mm (1/64 inch) ply. This gives more strength that I had thought possible. To leave at least some flexiblity for the wing warping I completely omitted this on the rear spars.
The TE took quite a bit of head scratching. I had first tried laminated ply but that was too rigid, balsa seemed too soft and prone to damage so I used spruce which was cut in at the rib positions for glue surface.
The LE is hardwood dowel, has the advantage of eliminating sanding.

For my next model I might build the spars differenty..instead of two thin strips connected by webbing I'd just use a single hardwood beam as is done with the proctor models...

abufletcher

References for the engine:

1. MAN Scale Drawings Vol. 1

2. Mark Miller's 3-D renderings (of the Albatros)

http://wwi-cookup.com/albatros/model...arkmiller.html

abufletcher

I've been exchanging emails with both Tom and Jaime. Tom gives the basic dimensions of his 1/5 scale kits as follows:

Wingspan: 74"
Fuse length: 55.5"
Weight: Around 13lbs.
Engine: OS 120 FS
Wheel size: 6"

The 1/6 scale size would be about:
Wingspan: 61"
Length: 46"
Weight: ???
Engine: OS 56 FS (seems maybe a tad small)
Wheel size: 4.5 - 5"

At this moment I'm leaning towards 1/6 scale for a variety of reasons. First my EIII was in 1/6 scale and it's be fun to have them the same scale. Second, when I make a 2-seater it would need to be 1/6 to be manageable. Third, I happen to have some 5" WB wheels and a couple sets of 1/6 scale WB Spandaus. Fourth, a 74" wingspan biplane seems huge at this point.

abufletcher

Actually, I'm not planning at this moment to actually build off these plans but rather to use them as construction aids. I'll enlarge the Wylam technical drawings to this same size and then make some adjustments based on info from my other references, primarily the drawings and descriptions from the Flugsport/Flight article (although these are describing the DIII not the DIIIa).

Trev

Don, I think that your 56 FS should be just fine for a 60" WWI bipe. Depending on how its built and detailed out, the all up weight could be anywhere in the range of 6-9lbs/
granted you won't get vertical performance with that engine, but the power would be prototypical and scale.
Also bear in mind that it would probably have a lower wing loading than your E.III due to the extra surface.

abufletcher

Trev, given that Tom says the 1/5 scale version will weigh around 13lbs and I'm not sure how much "modeling for god" he did on his plane, I'm afraid that my 1/6 scale model will weigh at least 10lbs. Keep in mind that the EIII ended up around 8lbs. and is at the bare limits of what a 52FS can manage. I'm seriously considering replacing the Magnum 52 with a Magnum 61FS which has the exact same exterior dimensions but is bored out larger. I could sure do with the extra power.

I don't want to have to scrimp on the detailing to keep the model to a bare minimum weight. For that reason I'd feel better with something a bit larger. Still, there's plenty of time for planning. I'll go ahead and order the 1/6 Tom Polapink plans for the DIIIa (from AZM) probably later today and then scrutize those carefully before proceeding.

As a in between project I might look into trying to model the Mercedes 160 HP engine at 1/6 scale -- that might be doable here in (fairly) rural Japan (no place in Japan is really rural anymore but there're aren't any hobby shops).

Trev

I see you point there, adding all the internal scale details and metal bits would tend to drive up the weight/
add that to the (probably) exclusively hardwood and spruce structure of the airframe and it might come out a pound or two heavier/
I'm currently realizing exactly this with my EIII, my intention of keeping the finished weight below 7 lbs for .40 size power seems a bit utopic at the moment/ perhaps 8lbs.
Ideal power would seem to be a .60 size FS, unfortunately I've only got a .40 and an .80/ naught in between. I'm afraid the .80 would tear the airframe apart.

Still, if you look at the models Donny produces that simply bristle with scale details and still come out at 10 -12 lbs for a 3 meter bipe/ well it's just amazing

Seems a good idea to make all the 'scale' preparations for the pfalz now...if you consider the engine a model in its own right then the job will be top notch I'm sure

BigglesFliesUndone

Hi guys..been busy else where so just catching up Perhaps this model will give a bit of help to engine size ..weight ..etc My BE2c span 63" power OS 52Fs weight 5lb with no fuel.. engine in cowl and silencer a copper pipe running down the centre of the fuz, exiting behind wings. Perhaps a bit light as it gets thrown about in a wind ..but on a calm evening ..a pure joy as it putters around on 1/4 throttle. I fully realise its not "modeled for god" but its decked out good enough for a Sunday flyer. Choosing your materials carefully for your size and power, you should still aim to be well below 10lb. I cant say for sure but I think a 52 FS would be toiling quite a bit on a 10lb bipe. Even if it flew ok on a calm day..a wind would knock it flat..with all the drag a bipe has. I fly a couple of 10 lb + bipes (admittedly around the 96" span) and in a moderate/strongish wind ..the OS 90 FS's just make "scale" headway into wind. Also keep in mind that with the obvious effort you are prepared to put into building the model, you dont want to ruin the work by having an engine "blowing in the breeze" An OS 70 is a good bit larger than the OS52. My thoughts would be ..decide on your power plant whether 52 or 70 .. and draw your plan (hence size and projected weight) round it so the engine is hidden from sight. In my opinion , it would be a shame to see you make a beautiful model..then find you need an engine larger than planned to fly it and it has exhausts and cylinder heads dangling out the sides.
PS Tev ..Caproni finished was 15lb

abufletcher

Donnie, thanks fo rthe advice! I greatly admire your ability to get outstanding, old-timey looking scale models up in the air with such incredible alacrity and frequency! Life's too short to only get to build only 1 model every two years or so. While I'd like the Pfalz to be a "modeled for god" museum scale effort, I'm thinking of doing a couple of other more casual "Sunday flyers" along the way. For example, the Funaero DIII would be a nice "trainer" for the Pfalz DIII -- I'll just need to keep reminding myself to JUST BUILD IT STOCK and have fun with it.

The Magnum 61FS has the same dimensions as the Magnum 52FS so i might have a look at that. But you're right that you need to start with a specific engine in mind BEFORE you start building! My EIII project was definitely a plan it as you go along project so I'm going about this project a bit differently.

BigglesFliesUndone

Thanks for the compliment Don..Im sure you will make a very impressive model ..no matter which way you choose to go.. I think its in your nature. To be honest..reading your's and Trev's posts put me in a notion to try "modelling for god" too ..just have to curb my impatience a bit ...so watch out for one later in the year. You have probably seen this link before..but anyone not familliar with "modelling for god" should look at this link http://www.wwi-models.org/Images/Foran/Camel/index.html OK not R/C .. but what a model !!

abufletcher

I think I had seen Ken's all metal EIII and was blown away by the workmanship. You can see why a lot of the "small model" guys think our RC scale models are a bit of a joke. For me the joy of modeling to technical drawings is to actually learn something about the actual aircraft and original construction techniques. I suppose I'd really like to be part of a restoration team -- but don't have any of the required skills!

Still, it's not quite an airplane if it doesn't fly. I spent my teen years doing static versions of the Guillow's models (did all of the WWI types at least once) but there was always something missing. RC just seemed out of my price range.

In many way I like your approach to modeling. You seem to treat each model as a work of art (rather than an engineering project) and it's the overall scale effect that makes each one so appealing. That's the problem with doing a really well-known model -- no matter how fantastic I build my Pfalz it's doubtful it will be better than Tom's. I admire your willingness to tackle projects like the Batboat!

PS. Looks like I need to polish my brass working and soldering skills!

BobH

My Feedback: (2)

Abufletcher, a word of caution on the Wylam plans. They are notoriously in error on many of the planes that he drew. I can't speak to this specific plane but you can check against some other drawings. One of these days I'll start working on my Proctor DVa!! That's AFTER I finish my SE5a! lol

abufletcher

Bob, thanks. Apparently the Wylam Pfalz plans also contain some gross inaccuracies. For example, the guy that did the artwork for the recent Pfalz DIII datafile says that there are too many ribs in the lower wing, that the nose looks a little too rounded, and that most of the interior details are little more than wishful thinking.

The problem with the Pfalz is there seem to be no remaining factory drawings despite rumors. It's been said that only at most 20% of the information needed to do a full-scale replica is available. A set of drawings from a 1919 issue of Flight/Flugsport seems to be considered the best reference but it only contains sketches rather than a serious set of technical drawings. Assuming that the DIIIa had the same fuse structure as the DIII I can probably use the set of formers in these drawings as a template. Likewise there is also an excellent drawing of the airfoils (upper and lower). I'm hoping that the new "Plalz Aircraft of WWI" book with also have some useful construction photos. I already have the Datafile and have just order the DIII datafile (#107). As far as I've been able to discover that pretty much exhausts the available Pfalz DIII references (though I'll also be looking at other Plalz's since planes built by the same company tend to have little things in common.

Sadly there are no surviving Pfalz DIII's (or DIIIa's). There's a replica in NZ that's actually based on a converted Gypsy Moth fuse. I'm sort of thinking of the Wylam plans as like the "frog DNA" in Jurassic Park that's used to fill gaps in the "dino-DNA" In the end, with this fuse type nothing inside is ultimately going to be visible.

abufletcher

Actually, I would imagine It'll end up at a pretty fair 33%/33%/33% mix of Tom's plans, the Wylam drawings, and the Flugsport sketches. Externally, I'll stick as close as I can to the photos.

Reg Hinnant

My Feedback: (9)

Hey Don,
Try to explain all that to a scale contest judge...........
[sm=drowning.gif] [sm=lol.gif]

abufletcher

I'll just tell'em that Bruno Stachel himself approved the outlines! Strange at it may seem I don't at this point have any real intention to complete with the model. Too many hoops to jump through. I've never even participated in a fun-fly!

In fact as a pilot, I'm just barely beyond basic trainer level (got into RC just a year ago). Currently I'm flying a Spacewalker and an Ugly Stik BOTH ARF's -- and not always walking away from the crashes! I'm one of those weird builders that's happy if the model makes it up into the air, makes a loop or two around the field, and lands again in more or less one piece. I'm absolutely amazed a people who have been flying the same model for 10 or more years!

Still we'll see...

abufletcher

Actually, I should ask Tom Polapink what he uses for documentation at Top Gun. At my local club (either here in Japan or in Corona, CA) I doubt there's a single guy who could distinguish the Pfalz DIII from an Albatros DIII. Most wouldn't be able to tell it form a DVII. I mean if it's not an Extra, a P-51, or a Corsair WHAT THE HECK IS IT???

BobH

My Feedback: (2)

Did you get your Pfalz book yet? I missed your post about the book. I have it myself. I got it a few years ago and its pretty informative. I'm at work so I can't comment on the drawings yet but I'll give a look when I get home if you haven't received your copy yet.

abufletcher

Not yet. I ordered a used copy via one of the Amazon resellers for about $25. Another seller was trying to sell one for $190! I only just became aware of the book and was thinking it was something recent.

Trev

Hehe, as a biologist I can appreciate that
wish I could contribute to the discussion, but I've got no experience with any of the info sources mentioned here/
Does anyone know if "Jane's WWI aircraft" has useful (and different) material on the pfalz?

This research aspect is just what makes the resulting model a unique work of art!

abufletcher

Trev, your ideas and tips are always welcome! BTW, you might want to head over the the Member's area of the FTS website. Achim has a number of interesting historical documents (though none on your Halberstand D unfortunately) in the archive section including a report from Flugsport (in German of course) on the DIII. The technical German is a bit of a challenge for me but a great vocab lesson!

A better knowledge of French wouldn't hurt either!