allanflowers

Ever since I saw the Siemens Schuckert profiles on Bob Pearson's excellent website (http://www.cbrnp.com/profiles/quarter1/index.html ), I have loved that airplane. It has such interesting forms, quirky details and colorful graphics that it just begs to be modeled. Then, I saw a kit version of it on the Arizona Modelcrafters site - and it seemed to be available in 1/6th scale!
I was hooked.
Unfortunately, when I looked into it further, the 1/6th version wasn't quite available after all - and I was beginning to read reports about difficulty in getting stuff from there. In the meantime, I had already put it on my next-to-do list, following the completion of my CD Scaledesigns Sopwith Pup. The Pup, by the way, is nearing completion pending the arrival of some trim paint and a few details. Maybe a month or so…
I like to have my next project well on the way, in terms of research, when the current one is winding down. So I was emotionally committed to the SSW D.III and decided to go it alone with a scratch design and build.
In one of my communications with Chris Davies of SC Scaledesigns about the Pup and his other projects, the subject of the Siemens Schuckert came up and he expressed an interest in it. So, if all goes well, Chris may produce the kit.
He has already provided me with a wealth of historical material that I was having trouble getting. Most of the literature on this plane is out of print. He is also providing technical know-how, some of an aerodynamic nature and some involving his production process - to factor into the design. As the design comes together, the idea is that my data will go to Germany, and NC cut wood and vac-formed parts will come back!
I have already begun the CAD work on this project and it is very exciting. That big fat fuselage gives lots of space for innovative packaging and the details, though challenging, are also very cool.
So watch this thread for further developments and please participate with your thoughts, advice and ideas.
(Photos from Profile Publications, No 86)

abufletcher

I always though the Siemens Schukert bore a similarity to the Snipe in a sturdier sort of teutonic way. Maybe it's the short, fat, stubby body that followed from using "last generation" rotary engines. Anyway, it looks like an interesting project!

BTW, I wouldn't want to trust those old Profile 3-views very much. I have the Profile for the Snipe and the drawings are wrong in all sorts of important ways.

TFF

Bringing a rare plane to life. I hope you detail the designing and development of the plane and plans as much as the plane.

ZoomZoom-RCU

Hey Allan.....very cool plane choice. I recall seeing an article in one of the Model Airplane mags not too long ago along with some build info on the Siemens Shuckert where the guy used a copper pipe running through the center of all the formers to keep the fuse aligned properly. I'm sure it was in a larger scale, but it never hurts to look at other peoples designs for ideas, especially on so rare a project. If you'd like I can see if I can locate it in my "stack". I look forward to watching this progress.

ZZ.

BobH

My Feedback: (2)

If you wanted to travel a bit east you can view the plane at the Arizona Planes of Fame.

ZoomZoom-RCU

Geesh, I just noticed something about this plane, which is probably why I've always liked it. If you look at that picture you just posted Bob, and imagine it without the top wing, that thing looks a heck of a lot like an I-16 Rata! Pugnacious and mean....yet cool.

ZZ.

cocobear

My Feedback: (2)

Very nice flyers!

Dave

allanflowers

Abu, I know what you mean about drawings. Even the best ones have inconsistencies. I am using a Dick Bennett 3 view, sent to me by Chris, for the primary outlines. It is in the Windsock Data File. The guys over on the Aerodrome site feel that it is the most accurate. The dilemma comes on a few areas that, from observation of photos, I suspect are not exactly correct. Do I follow the 3-view (that is what a scale judge is going to look at) or make a change and risk being criticized for not following my documentation? Fortunately, the issues are very small and mostly result from the tiny size of the 3-view drawings.
ZZ, I have obtained that article from Model Airplane News for the 1/4 scale version of the D.III. It was done using the Bennett drawings as reference and is an excellent reference in itself. When you do a 1/4 scale model from a 1/48 3-view, you have to intelligently interpret the drawings and fill in a lot of detail. That model is built over a metal tube which is an innovative idea, not unlike the Albatross on this site by Dave Johnson. Of course that is no coincidence since he did the Model Airplane News plane too (also the designer for the Arizona kits).
BobH, the plane in that photo is a D.IV, the later development of the aircraft. It is pretty neat too but has skinny wings and would be more of a challenge in 1/6th size. I am gathering information on the D.IV as a good reference to fill in the gaps. Unfortunately, I think all the D.IVs are replicas and there are no D.IIIs in existence anymore (?).
Originally I thought I would be able to offer variants to build a D.IV from the same plan but there are just too many differences. Hopefully the design will lend itself to the several variants of the D.III - of which I have found three.
Cocobear (Dave), your plans are very informative and innovative. The more I get into this project, the more I find that you had already faced (and resolved) the same challenges. I do wish that the guy who inked your plans had done a better job.
That is a great photo of the planes by the way. I know the right one is yours.. how about the left one?

abufletcher

The May 06 issue of Flying Scale Model also features a small BUT SPECTACULAR free flight version of the DIII with some 1/40 scale drawings by H. Woodman (1980) a quicky history with B/W photos and two pages of color 3-views. The profile color drawings appears to be exactly what you posted from the Profile so I'm assuming that the orange LO color scheme shown on the facing page is also in the Profile.

allanflowers

This one?
I have read that this plane probably was all red (no lozenge) and had a white tail (Dan San Abbott).
It would be a good candidate for anyone who doesn't want to tackle the lozenge.http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/post...96&toStyle=tm#
Click here to upload images and files!

cocobear

My Feedback: (2)

Hi Allan, I actually built both of them. There are at least a dozen floating around that I know of.

Dave

Babblefish7

Hi Allan,
I know just what you mean when you look at them they have that sort of quirky look to them. I fell in love with it from when I read the article in Model Airplane News. That when I know I would have to make one for myself. A lot of thanks to cocobear (Dave) for helping me with my build. I have built the 1/4 scale version, if you have any question I would be glad to help. Here are a few picture of mine.

Mark

allanflowers

Mark, I have several of those pix but not all. THANKS. Extremely neat airplane!
Frankly, I am terribly envious of you and Dave for already having such cool planes. I LOVE the trim scheme on yours and it is a serious consideration for my effort, when I get to that point.
You can count on me asking questions about your building and flying experience.

Babblefish7

Hi Allan,
I planed on doing the wood scheme but if the gluing of the wood panels you have to make sure there is no glue near the top surface for staining of the wood. Once the stain hit a spot of glue there is a huge spot that is a really light color and if that was going to happen mine would of been just like the blue one in daves picture. I have a bunch of build pic if you want to see them

Mark

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

Interesting, we have a glue at work which is essentially Titebond, that has something added to it so when a black light is held close you can see any residual glue. This is important so we do not send any projects to finish for exactly the same reason. Glue basically does not take stain. One of the best ways to remove it if it is present is with a cabinet scraper. This is essentially a flat piece of thin steel used to scrape the wood and it removes very little material.
Another thing, if looking to have a stained finish, I think the aliphatic resin (Titebond) or Elmers white glue would be prefered. Super glues or epoxy could be very difficult to remove and do not stain either. Of course it is best to try to be clean with your glue and wipe it all off when wet with a damp cloth.

cocobear

My Feedback: (2)

I could never build this or an Albatros in a million years without CA. I would never get the panels to sit right. AS to the glue, i always end up with a little on the surface but it has always sanded right off. As VG indicated, the key is finding it all before the stain finds it.

caribefoto

My Feedback: (2)

I am in the throes of a Proctor Albatross build and have PRE-StTAINED all the plywood fuselage sheeting, as well as the visible formers/stringers, etc in the cockpit area. No glue Albino spots this way. Any residue can be scraped away, or simply blends out after clear coating..........John

Babblefish7

John,
I thought about pre-staining the parts but I wanted to gover all th panel once on the plane and smoth them all out. there were a few ridges at the joints that needed to be taken down. If I were to do this plane again I would skin the whole thing in 1/32 anf then add panel in 1/16 at there correct locations. I added a few pic's of the building on the tube method. I set made it so I could spin the tube. This way I could work from the top down at all times just spin the frame to its new rotation.

Mark

allanflowers

Mark, is your fuselage skinned with balsa? I have never stained balsa but it looks pretty good, if that is what you used.
Your build photo answers one question I had about the way the upper side longerons track through the plane, being rather level to the ground until they are behind the cockpit then tracking a different axis. I assumed they had to do that but wondered what the top view would look like. This is a case where the Bennett drawings gloss over this issue.

allanflowers

The D.III was powered by a Siemens Halsey engine, an 11 cylinder rotary that was geared so that the prop turned half as fast as the engine and in the opposite direction. This gave tremendous torque for the big four blade propeller and resulted in a terrific rate of climb.
At 1/6th scale, this model will be powered by an RCV60SP which has the same properties at the Siemens Halsey. It is geared two to one and the engine turns opposite the prop. It should work with a 15" four blade propeller, as close to the 18" diameter (which would be accurate scale) as I think I can get without grossly overpowering the plane.
I ordered the RCV and measured it as well as I could, then created a digital model (last pix) to package in my CAD model.
The RCV has a rear section that can be rotated to four different positions. For now, I have rotated that section (on the digital model) so that the starter shaft will be inserted from the right side of the cowl. I have also modeled a typical digital servo like those provided with the Spektrum DX-7, an 8 oz Sullivan tank and a five cell battery pack.

Babblefish7

Yes the fuse is skinned in balsa. I used 3/32 balsa but I made sure that it was the flimsily I could find for all the skins. I would soak the balsa full sheets of balsa in the tube for an hour or so then wipe them down to get most of the water off of them and rubber band them to something that was close to the shape of the fuse let them dry overnight and the next day I would have pre-formed parts. If you look all the seams of the panels are on the ribs and stringers. so just cut the panels out do a little of sanding and put glue on the ribs and stringers and place the panels in place. did I forget to mention the hours of sanding and cutting to get the panels to just but right up with no gaps on all the sides.

Mark

abufletcher

I don't get how a rotary engine could be "geared." Or how the prop could turn slower than the engine.

*****

Nevermind.

A NEW ENGINE
Engineers at the Siemens-Halske works... had designed a radical eleven-cylinder, geared rotary engine based on the experience gained with their smaller nine-cylinder engine. In normal rotary engines the crankshaft was a stationary component around which the crankcase and cylinders revolved at some 1,200 to 1,500 r.p.m. In the Siemens engine the crankshaft revolved in one direction at 900 r.p.m. while the crankcase and cylinders rotated in the opposite direction, also at 900 r.p.m. This achieved a virtual engine speed of some 1,800 for an airscrew speed of only 900 r.p.m.; the obvious main advantage was in increased airscrew efficiency, there were, however, disadvantages in the system. Being a bigger and more powerful engine than its 110-h.p. forebear, the 160-h.p. S.H. III (as it was designated) tended to run a lot hotter and this effect was accentuated by the slow speed at which the cylinders rotated, with consequent reduction in the amount of air cooling obtained. These conditions were further aggravated by the lack of a good grade of castor oil (the universal lubricant for rotary engines) available to the Germans, with the result that there occurred a degree of piston seizure after only several hours running. The most encouraging feature of the engine was that, due to the high compression ratio, it maintained its power at very high altitude and for this reason its development was continued. The engine was fitted with twin magnetos and speed was governed by a proper throttle control, sensitive down to about 350 r.p.m. This was a considerable advance over most rotaries of the period which ran flat out and were only partially controlled by a "blip switch" which cut the spark altogether for as long as depressed, or by a control which cut the spark to certain cylinders, which system (in the Gnome Monos) had a serious attendant fire hazard. Another advantage in the Siemens engine, over standard rotaries, was that a considerable degree of reciprocaton was achieved in the opposite rotation of the cylinder and crankshaft masses which accordingly recduced the gyroscopic forces."
[from 'Profile Publications #86: The Siemens Schukert D3 & 4']

buzzard bait

That's very interesting, but I confess I'm still having trouble picturing how it worked. What made it work so that 1/2 of the rotation was the prop and 1/2 was the engine?

Allan, I'm very excited that you are going to use an RCV-60. So does that mean hand-carving a big four bladed prop? I've enjoyed watching your Pup and Camel shape up - beautiful work. I'll look forward to watching this one too.

Jim

allanflowers

Thanks Jim.
I already have a four blade APC and will probably get a four blade Zinger which can have its tips rounded and not look too strange. I will save carving my own props for later.
I am at a crossroads on the CAD design and will soon have to make some decisions (based on my preliminary studies) and go for it. I will start posting some images within a few days and will be interested in peoples' opinions.

abufletcher

Public designing is only for the very very brave!