Sethhunter

I agree on all points. That teddy is a great touch. Herris' book shows Hohn's D.III and D.IIIa painted the same scheme so I'm going to give it serious consideration. It means the wings are less interesting (not lozenge) but I like the red and stripes. Purely for the pilot's benefit - I don't believe it confused the AA gunners at all!

Sethhunter

Since this thread was started as a discussion of documentation (and I was recently critical of the dearth of color plates for the DIII.a), I was surprised to get an email from Amazon that a new Pfalz book has been published: “Pfalz Scout Aces of World War I� by Greg VanWyngarden, illustrated by Harry Dempsey, 2006 by Osprey Publishing Ltd. I assume the book follows the format of others in the series; 7 ¼ x 9 ¾ 96 page paperback. Excellent quality photographs and color illustrations. I haven’t read the book, which focuses on pilots and engagements. But I was delighted to see a good collection of color plates that complement, not duplicate, the plates in Jack Herris’ book Pfalz Aircraft of WWI. Dempsey provides illustrations of several Pfalz models including the P39, EI, DIII, DIII.a, DVIII and DXII. Since this site focuses on DIII.a documentation, I thought I’d mention the book has color pictures of the following DIII.a’s:

4117/17 Heldmann (Jasta 10) blue tail/yellow nose
Berthold (Jag. II) red nose, blue fuse, winged emblem
Muller (Jasta 18) White fuse, red nose, black bird emblem
Degelow (Jasta 7) Very dark fuse, reindeer emblem
8009/17 Hohn (Jasta 21s) Silver with spiral red bands
Alvensleben, Recourt, dark fuse, WWII style crosses
5855/17 Schafer (Jasta 16b) silver with black vertical stripes
Roth (Jasta 16b) Silver with diagonal black/white stripe
8155/17 Stark (Jasta 34b) Silver with purple stripe
8170/17 Bohning (Jasta 79b) Dark fuse, lozenge wing, HB emblem
4203/17 von der Marwitz (Jasta 30) Silver with orange diamonds
8233/17 Berthge (Jasta 30) longitudinal grey stripes with orange diamonds
von der Marwitz (Jasta 30) Maroonish purple with orange diamonds
Hertel (Jasta 40) Dark fuselage white tail gold/silver sword emblem
4229/17 Bucker, Varsenaere, Silver with green snake emblem.

By my count, the 15 color schemes here complement the 15 color schemes in Herris’ book with only 3 duplicates; Degelow’s, Schaeffer’s, and Berthge’s (which Herris attributes to Kaus).

One of the best surprises for me was the Pfalz logo; Dempsey’s rendition clearly shows birds soaring above a village and road, whereas the logo in Windsock Datafile 21 is hard to make out and looks (to me) like a castle.

The book was inexpensive. I highly recommend it!

abufletcher

Thanks for the heads-up, Seth! I've already ordered a copy from Amazon!

BTW, just because this thread started out as documentation, PLEASE, by all means, continue to post details of your outstanding Plalz build!!!

arspievack

Dear Pipe, ZZ, and Abufletcher

Yes, its me , just discovering that after all these years there is still interest in the Pfalz D-III. Pipe is right. I did the article in Flying Models in 1971!!! 35 years ago.
Don McGrovern told me it was one of the best selling plans they ever had.
The photos and plans reproduced were from me. The model had over 350 flights, was in many contests and won the NE Scale meet twice. It only had to be repaired once (landing gear) and that's a testimonial to it's flying characteristics not to me. Very docile and a great wind airplane.. rock steady even when I wasn't. The plans were as scale as could make them. It's demise was engine compartment oil soaking. One day I went to get it and the whole nose section was loose due to oil. I retired it with full military honors.

Pipe, Yes, we did meet. I was a general surgeon not a dentist Haven't done much modeling for the last 15 years but still like to stay in touch.
Thanks
alan spievack (still in Cambridge , MA.)

abufletcher

Alan, great you could join our discussion! I have a copy of your construction article and plans and, IMHO they are the most scale accurate RC plans available. I'd love to hear what sort of research went into the drawing of your plans. For example, on what references did YOU base the outlines?

I think it wonderful how the building of certain models develop a history over time -- with each generation of modeler standing on the shoulders of prior generations trying to take it to greater heights. Actually, I think the race is on for someone (most likely Achim Engels) to produce a full scale flying replica.

arspievack

Going away for the weekend, but on Monday will get out my old Scale documentation book and check to see what I have and will let you know.
Thanks for answering my note.
'alan

Mode One

Alan,

I also have the 1971 Flying Models issue your articlel was written in. A dear friend had many issues of MAN and FM for as far back as the 50s and maybe 40s. I scanned his selection and found the issue with the Pfalz article in the early 1980s. My friend was good enough to give it to me. I love the musty smell of these old magazines.

I have yet to build my Pfalz. However your article gave me the intestinal fortitude to scratch build my Albatross DIII in 1/6th scale.

Thanks for your hard work and documentation, Alan!

Mark

arspievack

Mode One
Thanks for your note.
If you ever get around to the Pfalz let me know. If i can help I will.

ars AMA 3155 (old guy)

Sethhunter

Wrapping up the Proctor Mercedes kit. A few pics below. Tried to set the valves in the correct relative timing based on photos of the Smithsonian Albatros engine. I made the spark plug connectors from tubing, flattened on one end and filed into a hook that fits under the cap on the spark plug. Glued the wires into the round end. The plug wire guides are bolted onto the water jackets using 2-56 studs (nuts on the outside) and straps made from the aluminun in the kit. I have a few dowels left over that I'm not sure where they were supposed to go! Generally I didn't like the way the tubing in the kit looked for hose clamp connections so I made hose clamps from card stock and brass wire (for the screw).

I have a wire wheel kit from AZM that I picked up from a fellow modeler. The tubing for the tire is VERY heavy. I may try casting one from silicon per prior suggestions and the article on the AMA website. Any other suggestions?

Next step is to pick a color scheme so I can finish the tail planes, install the running rigging and get a measure on how much weight it will take to balance - and pick an appropriate motor that will fit under the Merc. I bought some aluminum wire to make the radiator but it will be too heavy so I'm thinking styrene rods or tubes is the way to go - that rad has a huge bunch of 'em.

Incidentally - I was looking around for thinned leather that could take the pleating folds for the cockpit combing as it appears on the full scale and happened upon a patent leather jacket for $5 in a thrift shop that is really thin material, looks like leather, and is gasoline proof!

arspievack

Pipe,

You're right about the reasons for "odd -ball" scale, at least in the old days.
We scale nuts had to build to engine and accessory sizes that were available.
Example, in the late 70's Webra came out with the first .90 in engine. I had been drooling for larger displacements so i could build bigger planes.

As soon as I got one i built a 1/5th scale Mig -3 and published the article in FM.
Soon after Dave Platt came along with "Stand -off Scale' and then Giant scale.
he called me one night and asked about the Mig and was kind enough to say he thought I would get credit for moving us all into bigger airplanes.
We all found out quikly they flew better, looked better in the sky and could carry more weight and thus more scale detail.
I took the Mig to the International Scale meet in Dayton in 1975. The Russian contingent there loved it and we spent a rainy afternoon in the scale judging hanger talking models ( through a translator) and eating Oreo cookies which they asked the receipe for. Since I thought that might be divulging secrets to the enemy, that night I went out and bought them a large package of Oreos.
The result was some good pen-pal friendships and alot of traded model info.

alan

arspievack

see below

Dai Phan

My Feedback: (2)

Hi,

What is the best set of plans for this plane in 1/5 to 1/6 scale? I am planning to have the parts cut. Thanks! DP

Dai Phan

My Feedback: (2)

Hello all,

After doing some research, it appears that the Spievak plan fits the bill. Does anyone know the process of having the parts cut by kit cutting companies? DP

arspievack

Dai Phan
Yes you're right my plans from Flying Models are 1/6th scale and any copy place can blow them up to whatever scale you like.
One warning. The airfoil I show on the plans is NOT scale. It's an NACA foil which I used to garauntee good flight characteristics. ( which it definitely had)
You can modify the airfoil easily before you start to build. The scale airfoil is available in many books on the Pfalz.

I don't know anyone who cuts kits for the model. But I bet you can find some one who would do it for you . There's one on this site that I think offers the service. My bet is it will cost 900-1000 bucks for a special kit like this. pretty stiff! I'd think you'd have more fun doing it yourself.
I'll check and see if I can find the company.
Thanks
alan spievack

Dai Phan

My Feedback: (2)

Alan,

Thank you for your reply. Mainly I am looking for a sport scale rather than exact scale. By sport scale I mean close enough but not way off either. Are you sure it may cost that much to have the wood cut? Perhaps your plan is extremely complex and out for the average builder? I have ZERO scratch building experience. DP

abufletcher

I wouldn't think it would cost anywhere that much but certainly 2-3 hundred for a set of ribs and formers. But really don't get all hung up on the term "scratch build." Making a model from RC model plans is really not all that different than building from a kit. Most kits aren't much more than a box of wood anyway. With your experience building the Albatros you should be able to "step up" to cutting the parts you need to build from Alan's plans. Have a look at the photo of these plans in one of the earlier pages of this thread.

Now building a model based on technical drawings (or 3-views) of a model is a WHOLE different level. But with a set of RC plans someone (like Alan or Tom) have already done all the hard work for you. But even with the best of plans (and the best of kits) you still end up having to make a lot of decisions yourself -- and THAT's really all scratch building is.

Dai Phan

My Feedback: (2)

Albufletcher,

You are right about the fact that a kit is a bunch of precut parts. On my Albatros, it is all wood except for the after market spinner. The Arizona Model Aircrafter kit is based on TP's plan as Jaime told me. At 500 bucks, I think it may be cheaper to have the kit cut from the original plan as I really do not know if AMA has modified from Tom's plan. I am waiting for a response from kit cutter company to see how much they charge and the turn around time. This would be a PERFECT winter project! That Pfalz is just crying for me right now as I give up hope on finding the Flair Bristol. DP

Dai Phan

My Feedback: (2)

Abuflecher,

In comparision between the TP and AP plans, which one offers simpler construction? I do not want to jump in a project that is way above my ability. Thanks DP

abufletcher

I don't have the two sets of plans in front of me at the moment (they're in Japan and I'm in Southern Cal) but the Spievack plans are, IMHO, both closer to scale AND much more detailed. The Polapink plans seem pretty minimal to me (I ordered them from AZM at the 1/6 scale).

I haven't really thought about the differences between the two in terms of easy of construction. They seem pretty similar to me in this regard.

BTW, I didn't say that a kit is "a bunch of pre-cut parts" -- often they are more of a box of WOOD that YOU still have to cut (and shape). Really, all you'll get from a cutting service is a set of ribs and formers and maybe a few other bits like wing tips. In other words a "short kit." Don't expect a build-by-number Guillow's style kit. The Flair kits are pretty all inclusive but they definitely require that you "think through" the build.

Still, I think if you have managed to build the Funaero DIII you probably have the skills needed to build from a set of RC plans.

And $500 dollars seems absolutely outrageous!

arspievack

Dai and Abu,
I really don't know what a full kit would cost and may be way off at $900. But if just ribs and formers are $200-300 then a full kit still may be twice that,
I agree with Abu that the term "scratch built" should be left for doing the whole project. Research, drawing plans, cutting parts, building and finishing detail. Even then you'll do some experimenting as you work, and will use your ideas and those of others to make decisions about how to do things.
For example when I was 12 years old I knew about soaking strips of wood, bending them round a form with glue between the strips, pinning them down and letting them dry. I don't think I invented that. But I've seen that method described in articles over and over through the years. As Abu has said we build on each other's experiences.
How hard that is depends on the aircraft. I've built fun-fly /trainers without plans by just "throwing them together". I guess that's scratch built. But leave the term alone and just go over in your head what you think you'll have to do, and that will tell you if you want to start or not.

alan

abufletcher

Dai Phan, here's a side by side comparison on the Speivack vs. Polapink plans (as posted earlier in this thread). I bought both (as well as a number of other Pfalz resources) and while I would probably want to entirely scratch-build my Pfalz (if and when I ever get around to that) based on the Flug sport drawings (like Seth has done), I'd be looking at Alan's and Tom's RC model designs for ideas on how to solve practical problems.

One obvious difference between the plans is that the Polapink design uses a solid rudder and elevator while the Spievack design calls for built-up structures (which I personally prefer). Alan's plans also include a lot of detail "how to" drawings.

Alan, I'd like to hear what references you for the outlines on your model. Did you base them on the Nieto drawings, or some earlier (or later) set of three views?

Dai Phan

My Feedback: (2)

Abu,

It appears like the TP seems to be simpler in contruction than AS? But the AS plan offers contruction articles while the TP does not? I would like the easiest plan since this will be first time for me to do this. DP

arspievack

Abu
My principle source is the Wylam Materplan. Not only does it have all the ribs, formers, etc. but has minute detailed measurments for every station and every fixture and feature on the plane. While i have no idea if they're correct it obvious that someone must have measured a real pfalz to be so meticulous.
For example would you like to know that the tire thread was 4 inche wide? or that the width from the center of the tire thread to the edge of the inner wheel bearing was 3 1/4 inches? The plans also show the differences between the D-III and the D-IIIa. I did the "a" model because it has a bigger horizontal stanilizer. From the front edge to the rear edge of the cockpit was 26 1/4 inches. Stuff like that.
I have a number of other sources of pictures and photos (Profile) etc. But the plans came from the Wylam set.
alan

abufletcher

Alan, thank for the info. I have the Wylam DIII drawings but they may be different from the "masterset' you refer to. From the research I've done it seems like Wylam got most of his information from the 1919 examination of a Pfalz reported on in the British journal flight and then subsequently published (in German with a revised text) in Flugsport. At the time that Wylam did his drawings, I believe that they represented the "best scholarship of the day." However, more recent investigations suggest that the Wylam drawings (like most of his other drawings) contain a number of small inaccuracies. For example, I've read that the curve of the nose "chin" on the Wylam Pfalz drawings may not be quite right and that the number of ribs in the upper wing is off by a couple. Some have also said that most of the interior (including former cutouts) may be mostly "informed fantasy."

At any rate, your plans look to me to be the closest to the Flugsport sketches -- which makes sense if you based your plans on the Wylam drawings and he based his drawings on the Flugsport sketches. Some of the "sketches" on the Wylam drawings, by the way, are EXACT reproductions of the anonomous Flugsport sketches. As a research scholar myself I find it a bit odd that he didn't acknowledge this. As I mentioned earlier in this thread I'd probably base my own build directly on the Flugsport drawings (essentially taking the "miniature replica" approach) and then fill in the gaps with info from the Wylam drawings and look for pracrtical ideas on RC implimentation from you plans.

Seth Hunter's amazing Pfalz DIIIa is about as close to the miniature flying replica as I've seen so far -- going so far as to include authentic half-shell molded wickelrumpf construction.

arspievack

Abu,
Thanks
I do not have the Flugsporte material you mention so can't comment. Is it easily available?
AND does this site have any photes of Seth's airplane. I'd love to see it. You may have noticed when I built my fuselage I made it in two halves, then sheeted it.
The first time I tried using 1/64 ply but it was just too heavy.
Thanks
alan