abufletcher

Seth, your DXV project has been stunning from start to finish...and what a great finish! Glad to hear you've gotten in several more flights and are getting the hang of it. Your talk of mixing and exponential on the rudder makes me realize how little I've gotten into the finer points of radio control and, for that matter, how limited my current Tx is (though it's always seems outstanding for what I percieved as my purposes). Expo on the rudder of my Legionnaire would definitely be a good thing. And being able to use throttle curves would be a big plus when setting up a wonky throttle linkage.

Again, super-duper job! I'd like to see as many more glamour shots as you feel like taking!

grover1

Seth
The plans for the Pfalz DXV are superb .

Now to shrink them to 1/6 scale

O what the hell I may just do a 1/4 scale

Greg

at-6 texan

Hi Guys Excuse me if I go in OT. three years ago in another forum I found this link http://www.laserengines.com/ where proposed aircraft engines such as ones for breeding of 1WW ..the sound is very realistic ... and the engine and equally reliable. i hope which that may be useful....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-xUw...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLB_T...er_profilepage

Sethhunter

A couple loose ends -

- I do have a set of plans (pdf) that I scaled down to 1/6 if anyone's interested. (Note, dimensions will not be to scale since it was designed in 1/4).
- Between projects, I decided to build a static prop. Not so hard - a spokeshave really helps! Prop is 28", curved LE and straight TE.
- Since I pranged the Herbie Wheels wheels on my first landing, thought I would try re-spoking it. The original spokes hook to the hub, pass through the rim and are soldered. Solder takes the full load at the rim joint. I'm going to try making U-shaped spokes - passing ends of the U thru two holes in the rim, then thru two holes in the hub, bending and soldering. We'll see. Pic below shows the Herbie wheel stripped of spokes and ready for new ones.

Guys at the field like the DXV but think I need a bigger plane (1/3) to fly formation, preferrably German (way too many Allied aircraft in our club). So I picked what I hope is a quick build, easy to set-up, and just a tad unusual: Halberstadt DIII. I'll start a thread as soon as the plans are farther along.

But I'd like to poll all you 1/3 scale experts: What materials/size have you seen used to build open frame fuselages? I need this plane to be LIGHT LIGHT LIGHT!

eagledancer

for 1/3 scale i have seen 1/4 square spruce on sopwith pup from busa and its way to small for a good strong fuse. 3/8 spruce is my prefered material

abufletcher

If after looking at your amazing Pfalz all they have to say is: "Yeah, that's nice, but it needs to be bigger" Well, they need to get their heads examined! Personally, I just don't understand this movement towards 1/3 scale. Why not 1/2 scale?

geezeraviation

My Feedback: (3)

There's some half scale out there Abu, at our meet last month there was a 60% clip wing Cub that was awesome.
Doc

abufletcher

If people were building these new 1/3 (or 1/2) scale models to the standard of tfokker's 1/2 scale DVIII, i.e. full-out miniature replica constructions, then I'd be all for it. But most of the 1/3 models I've seen are actually less scale than a lot of 1/4 or even 1/6 scale models. A 1/3 scale model needs to be not just 100% bigger than a 1/6 scale model, it also needs to include 100% more scale fidelity! At 1/3 scale you'd need to be including every scratch, crack, seam, and groove visible on the original. Otherwise, the model will come off looking "empty" and modelish. Pete McDurmott and Ian (Idigbo?) seem to understand just what's involved.

geezeraviation

My Feedback: (3)

True ,true and true. Some do some dont. A 40% aerobatic model leaves me cold but then there are others....know what I mean? I'm building a 1/3 Nieuport 28, started with a BUSA kit, the model is near fully framed and the box is still full of parts and materials, I truly would have been better off starting with Hardesty's drawings and doing it from scratch, we live, we learn. It'll be a fine model but there will be stuff I'll always wish I'd done differently.
Doc

Airwarrior

It depends on what the modeler thinks looks "scale". Personally, I prefer the look of larger models in flight. The 1/3rd models seem to fly much lighter and slower, and it results in a much more scale looking flight.


Kinda like this:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gIJBbLEDkk&fmt=18[/youtube]

abufletcher

Dave, that is beautiful and you make a very good point. You could say that a 1/3 scale model gives the flier a much more authentic flying experience and presents a more "scale" appearance in flight than a smaller model even if the model itself isn't as scale in all the details (when viewed up close). And I sure wouldn't argue with that. And I'll admit that I'd love to own and fly one of these Big Birds. I'm just afraid it would take me 10 years to detail one!

But as someone who loves the building (and the historical research it is based on), I guess I'd prefer a highly detailed 1/6 or 1/4 exact scale model than a lightly-detailed sport-scale 1/3 model. Besides, I'm already planning to do a 1/6 scale FE2b and believe me when I say that THAT will be a BIG model! The Pup was just a small aircraft that a 1/6 scale Pup really is small.

JohnF

Seth, Hope I'm not too late but you should use brass eyelets to solder your spokes to on the rim. Also, I think I read somewhere that spruce weighs twice as much as balsa? If you are trying to make the frame "scale" then I think you will need to use spruce. If you don't care about that and the fuselage will be painted and not so transparent then I would use balsa and soak it with CA. As for wing spars spruce is good but trying to save weight I used bass wood with balsa webs coated with CA for the Aviatik. Just my two cents worth.

JohnF

Don, I find it much easier to make details on a 1/3 scale model and they are also easier to work on. My eyes and hands just don't like working on small things any more.

abufletcher

Sure it's easier to make big things than small things. But my point is that you really need at least TWICE AS MUCH detail on a 1/3 scale model to get the same effect as half as much detail on a 1/6 scale model. So is it easier to make (and research) twice as much stuff? Is it easier to do the research into where exactly the seams in the fabric were, since those seams will be visible on the 1/3 scale model? Also it's not a matter of making big stuff INSTEAD of little stuff. With the 1/3 model you've got to make all the same stuff you have on the 1/6 scale model (at a larger size) but then you ALSO have to add all of the smaller detail that you just wouldn't see on a 1/6 scale model and that smaller stuff is just as small as the "smaller big" stuff on the 1/6 scale model. Sooooo, with a 1/3 scale model you're really doing BOTH the big stuff and the small stuff.

In other words, a 1/3 scale model with the same "depth of detail" as a 1/6 scale model will look a little barren and model-like.

Sethhunter

Great points! Don, I aggree with your observation about depth of scale, and Dave's about realism in flight. The interest here is realism and skill in flight, especially with 6-10 aircraft flying simulated dogfights and formations. For this kind of flying, I wouldn't use a highly detailed prize model because of the tight airspace. Above all, I admire well built models of any size and detail. True, the big stuff taxes my budget and ability to transport - but it's just another way to enjoy this great hobby. I do want to say I hope my brevity didn't cast anyone in a poor light. If so, it was entirely unintentional. My fellow club members are the most supportive, talented, gracious, fun group to fly with, and they have enormous experience to boot! Anyway, I think the discussion is a good one, since the trend towards big is real.

Incidentally Don, did you build that cockpit - amazing!

Thanks John for all the suggestions. I'll look for eyelets - makes a lot of sense.

abufletcher

I know just what you mean and I can only wish that there were more serious builders (and/or fliers) at my field. You're lucky to have such a crew around you!

This just one representative bit of Pete McDermott's 1/3 scale Snipe and the depth of detailing that it had. I couldn't even begin to do this level of work. Seriously, I just don't have the skills and I'm not being modest. But even beyond that even I did have the skills, I just didn't have the information to do anything like this much detail on my Snipe. Even after all my research, my mental picture of the Snipe cockpit wasn't any more that 20% complete. And maybe this was enough for my little 1/6 scale cockpit (but even there I could have done more) but on a 1/3 scale model, everything has to be there.

Anyway, all of this talk about BIG MODELS has almost convinced me to try a 1/5 scale Pup!

grover1

Hi Seth
Will you be making the Halberstadt DIII plans available as you did with Pfalz DXV .
Which I say thank you for .

Greg

Sethhunter

Sure - I'll be happy and honored.

JohnF

Don, I get your point. I guess it's just a matter of how much work you want to put into whatever scale you build and what level you want to compete at if that's your goal. I believe judging is done at many events from five feet away so going nuts on every screw and nut doesn't really matter. Personally, I think you just have to satisfy yourself that you have done enough. In the air, the only thing that matters is the scale outline and flight characteristics. Some guys are never satisfied and need to test themselves with every model they build. Some guys are just so talented and have great resources that work that seems impossible for us is a cake walk for them. I enjoy getting great results from less. Of course, choosing the right subject also makes a difference. At 1/3 scale and larger I would stay away from subjects that would require too much detail in the first place but that's just me. I know my limitations.

geezeraviation

My Feedback: (3)

Seth, a friend of mine in Alabama is doing a Halbie D V in 1/3 scale. I know he scarf jointed spruce in front to balsa in the rear for the longerons. I have sent him an e-mail and asked if he would pass to me the stock sizes he used there, also the uprights and cross members. I would probably use bass instead of spruce as it's just as tough and has a finer grain and I think its easier to glue and it stains more evenly in areas that need it.
Doc

geezeraviation

My Feedback: (3)

Sorry it took so long to get back, my bud was in the hospital having a stent done, "ouch!"
He used 1/4 sq bass scarf jointed to 1/4 sq balsa for longerons. 1/4 sq balsa uprights and cross members. 3/16 X 1/8 stringers, 1/16 ply sides. Ribs were 1/4 ply or balsa with 3/8 X 3/32 caps. Spars were all spruce some 1/4 sq some 1/4 X 1/2 and some 1/4 X 3/4. I'm not familiar with the aircraft so dont know if the ply sides are full length or just in the front, nor do I know the spar arrangement. Hope this is worth reading for you.
Doc

Sethhunter

Thanks Doc - yes it is helpful. His plane must be very light. Thanks for passing this along. Hope he feels better soon.

geezeraviation

My Feedback: (3)

Not that there are any similarities but my 1/3 Nieuport 28 uses 5/16 X 1/2 longerons front to back with 5/16 X 3/8 uprights and cross members. The diagonals (sides only) are 5/16 square. All are balsa. The N 28 of course has formers to round it out and is wrapped with 1/32 ply from the cockpit fwd and 1/8 X 3/16 stringers to the rear, 20 of them in bass wood. Lacking diagonals on the top and bottom of the basic box I used Kevlar cord in an X pattern from the cockpit back and it was very ridgid before the stringers were added.
Doc