abufletcher

I just keep looking and looking at this photo...and realize that this is what I ultimately want. And I realize that no one could ever really make a "kit" of this...or that if someone could produce a perfectly little box of 1000 miniaturize parts, I still wouldn't be happy with just assembling it like a plastic kit. I guess I've gotten to that point were I really do want to make every little part myself. I've even started to feel I'm missing out when I use a WB gun kit. So far, I've been able to resist these feelings by modifying (often extensively).

But, yes, absolutely, I feel conflicted. The MR kit is, in my opinion, as good as any scale WWI kit ever needs to be. The problem lies somehow in the very nature of "kits."

chris923

My Feedback: (53)

Abu,

Have you ever build any of Balsa Usa's Planes. They seem to be well liked here in the states.

Chris923

abufletcher

geezeraviation

My Feedback: (3)

Must have just stopped in. Very tactful response Abu.

chris923

My Feedback: (53)

I guess that answers that question.

Thanks for the insightful feedback.

Chris923

geezeraviation

My Feedback: (3)

Chris, BUSA kits are wonderful and I like em! Some folks seek a little more fidelity, and thats fine too. No rudeness was intended. Hope you'll hang out, there's always something to be learned.

chris923

My Feedback: (53)

That was kind of my point, I didn't realize that you and ABU both had commented on the 1/3 DR1 on an other thread.

Some modelers are more of a scale purist than others, I was curious to get ABU opinon of BUSA as opossed to MK.

Chris923

David Bathe

Abu, I guess you've just got to answer the question, why do I want it build it?

Is it for competition?
If so, you'll want the best scale outline, fastest/simplest build (who care about what you can't see) normal construction materials for easy repare, light weight to fit reg's and great flying charatoristics etc... 'cause that what you're getting with these comp' kits. Tools to do a job... Score in static/and flight.

Or do you want to build it for yourself... a complete reproduction... in miniture?
If so, good luck finding a kit... and as you stated yourself... I don't actually believe you'd be happy "assembling" it.

So... stratch it.... You won't be the first.
The great thing about these WWI planes is, even though the look all complex in the bones... there's actually very little... and what there is, is normally quite simple/basic construction.

Go for it as a side line to the kit build. Start with a rudder, then a fin next the stab.
A little quirky at the beginning but once you orientate yourself with the construction and get a hang of the building materials/techniques... I'd bet you'd be cracking along in no time.

abufletcher

David, being tucked away in rural Japan where even a trip into Osaka can cost several hundred dollars, competing is really no part of my hobby equation...and probably never will be. There are a few scale events in Japan but I just can't justify (to myself) the expense of attending when I would much rather spend that money on building.

geezeraviation

My Feedback: (3)

How much is gasoline in your area, Ive wondered often but never asked.
Doc

abufletcher

Gas (for the car) is about $7 a gallon. That might seem really high but I drive a whole lot less in Japan than I would in the US. Unfortunately, in terms of driving anyplace distant, I'd also have to pay fairly expensive road tolls. For example, to drive across the bridge which connects my island of Shikoku with the main island, Honshu, costs $150 round trip. There was a small scale meet last weekend about a 2 hour drive away, but it would have cost me about $200 to drive there and back.

Anyway, I'm not complaining. People choose to do different things with their money. Some US modelers spend hundreds and even thousands each year traveling back and forth across the country to fly-ins and contests. That's cool. I'd rather spend that money on model building.

US185Damiani

Don,

It looks like a set of replicraft drawings is going to be in your future for every build from here on out!hehehe ;-)

abufletcher

Unfortunately, only minimal information is available about many of the wonderful WWI aircraft we love to model. And it's a shame to only model the few that we happen to have good documentation of. [] In many cases we have to go the Jurassic Park route and replace the missing "dino DNA" with "frog DNA."

geezeraviation

My Feedback: (3)

So true, I'm of course a little less bothered by that than you are, but you model for you and I model for me, and that way we all have a good time. Plus with the wonder of the internet we can cuss discuss and swap knowledge, ideas, and methods so we can do a better job for ourselves. What's Abu doing on Thanksgiving?
Have a good one, Doc

abufletcher

Happy Turkey Day!

abufletcher

Of course in this day and age, all we really need to build a great scale model is a couple of hours on the internet and maybe the Datafile. Anything else is just gravy.

abufletcher

Here's a side-by-side comparison of the new CAD-produced version of the MR Strutter and the side view from one of Dave Boddington's last designs, a 1/5 scale very scale Sopwith Pup based on the Replicraft plans (which I have enlarged here to something like 1/4 scale). There's really no comparison, the DB plans are enormously more detailed, more scale, and informative than the new MR plans. By comparison, the MR plans are little more than schematics to aid in construction. They'll do the job, but it's entirely up to the modeler to work out any and all scale details.

BTW, a laser-cut parts set ("short kit") is available for the DB 1/5 scale Pup from Flying Scale Models. There was a profile of this design in the magazine as well.

TFF

With what you want out of a plane, scale details on a model plan should be a hindrance. Most of those details are going to be a compromise so I think the bones would be what you want.

abufletcher

In some ways that's true. But taking that way of thinking to its logical conclusion you could really just have a few "registration points" on a "building diagram." It would suffice for laying out formers and longerons while building. I think I just prefer the "art" of hand-drawn plans. I have yet to see a single CAD-produced plan that I'd care to hang on my wall. As far as the detail on the DB plans, some is just "window dressing" for example, bits representing cockpit instrumentation on the original. But most of it are good old fashioned scale solutions to WWI building problems. Maybe they aren't exact scale but they are a good starting point. These are the sorts of things I used to read about in Gorden Whitehead's "Sport Scale Master Class" column in Flying Scale Models. (Boy, I sure miss that.)

The MR plans will allow a competent builder to get the job done. And I suppose nothing more than that is required.

TFF

That is a different subject. I have 50 odd plans just because I like plans. I love nice ones; building from good ones is a help, but straight forward builds, I only care about matching stuff up to the line. When dreaming of a project, I like to lay them out on the dinning room table and run stuff through my head, but once they become a tool for building my focus narrows to just info.

abufletcher

Guess what I've been doing all day on my recently vacated building table!

It's true that once you focus in on what lines you are actually going to need to build you realize that most of of what's there on most model plans (and 99% of what's there in technical drawings) is just window dressing. And I always seem to fixate on the fuselage side view. The rest of the plans are just plans. It's hard to get excited about a wing.

I looked hard at the 1/4 scale enlargements of the DB Pup plans, but in the end the Pup is just a Pup and the Strutter is something at least a bit different. By the way, the 1/5 scale Pup is just about the same size as my Flair Puppeteer, maybe just a tad larger. The 1/4 scale Pup though is really an impressive size (for me). The 1/4 scale Strutter is going to be a monster!

abufletcher

The verdict is in: Laid over same-size enlargements of the Replicraft strutter drawings, the MR Strutter plans are close, but not exactly the same. Many lines are so close that it seems obvious that the MR plans are strongly based on the Replicraft drawings...which makes it all the more curious that some lines seem off. I'm mean if the plans were made by "tracing over" the Replicraft drawings, why wouldn't everything match up? I'll need more study before I can determine whether these are "purposeful" changes or just random discrepancies. As just one example, the vertical fin seems to match up but the curve and size of the rudder are a bit more "ample" (by no more than maybe 10%) relative to the Replicraft drawings. This might be purposeful. But the rationale behind other departures seems less obvious. In some instances, perhaps Mick actually felt the Replicraft drawings weren't right.

I'm tempted just to build over the Replicraft drawings using the MR parts. Since there is no "long wood" included in the kit, this isn't as wasteful as it might seem.

geezeraviation

My Feedback: (3)

It all boils down to whos research is closest? Or maybe are they both off, it's time to stop obsessing and start, a contest judge will never see it, if one did it only has to match the docs, how odd is that. You can argue that its not right but thats how it is, period. Unless you go where there is a real live 1 1/2 strutter to measure and compare with not even you will know if it's right. My point is somewhere you have to draw a line and say this is how it's going to be and call it good. Or you can agonize over it forever and never build it. All three views are drawn by someone and are subject to inconsistancies, photos are always at some sort of angle due to parallax so there is room for irregularities in all your sources. You have to decide Don, it's up to you.
Doc

TFF

Two simple things for plan error. Were the dimensions lofted off the Replicraft which is the correct way to read a plan, not relying on the drawn line, and Printing machines make minor errors and over time those add up visually after many runs, hence first problem. I doubt the Replicraft ones were blown up and drawn over. Lofting is what you do if you were to build a full size plane; us modelers want it easer than that.

abufletcher

Given that the MR kit is only a "short kit" and in fact most of the "kit" is actually (very good) scale accessories, it really makes little difference if I build on the MR plans or on the Replicraft drawings. Upon a closer examination, there are far more discrepancies in things like the position of fuselage uprights that I'm willing to accept.

So I guess my choice is the follow the Replicraft drawings, and just look to the MR plans for "practical building suggestions." The only scale judge I'll ever meet is me.