vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

One of the other issues with the Saito gas engines is they need a higher oil percentage to run properly and not seize. No roller bearings on the connecting rod ends. This is important as one of the main benefits of running gas is a clean burn and no mess on the airplane.
Another thing as well is the first Saito gassers were just converted glow engines and the cooling fins are not adequate to cool the high temps of a gas engine.
The DLE offerings are very attractive. They are even coming out with a 20cc. A fellow club member has the 30cc in his BUSA DVII and likes it a lot. I think one thing with these engines, they put out more power and are lighter than the Zenoahs. The 30cc seems to be about the same power wise as the G38. All of these engines have a rear carb though which is very attractive.The light weight may actually be a negative for our uses though.

Airwarrior

I have a DLE 30 in my Pup. It flies my 20 lb. heavyweight monster around like a dream.

abufletcher

What size is your Pup?

abufletcher

So, since I'm daydreaming about 1/4 scale models, what would be a good size gas engine for a 1/4 scale Sopwith Triplane?

geezeraviation

My Feedback: (3)

A G38 would handle it quite nicely, most Pups are flying on G23/26 with plenty of power.
Doc

Airwarrior

1/4th scale. The recommended flying weight is something like 15 pounds, but after all the details and things I added, the model came out to 20 pounds. Doesn't fly heavy though, which was a nice surprise.

geezeraviation

My Feedback: (3)

With 1985 sq in of wing area it wouldnt fly heavy. As long as power is adequate ( your 30 is lots ) wing loading is about what you'd expect of a trainer.
Doc

abufletcher

Doing a 1/4 scale Pup does seem like an easy introduction to 1/4 scale. Almost too easy. I already have the very nice DB 1/5 scale plans and I can easily blow these up to 1/4 scale. These are Dave's "final" Pup, based closely on the Replicraft drawings, and are actually more scale than his older 1/4 scale Pup. And I have the "cowl" (26cm aluminum pot) sitting right in front of me. But then,I suppose I could just as easily just do it in 1/5 scale (even have the WB wheels already and cowl) and I could use the Saito 82 that I have sitting around. The Pup had a wingspan of 26' 6" (318") so at 1/6 scale that's a pretty small 53" and at 1/5 scale it's 63.6" (about the same as my Snipe) and at 1/4 scale that makes a respectable 79.5 inches (1/3 = 106").

But since I already have the Puppeteer, which is a sport scale Pup, the ONLY point in doing a 1/4 scale Pup would be to build and fly and ABSOLUTELY scale version. By that I mean, a Pup with scale outlines and a scale airfoil. And if I can't fly a completely scale Pup, I need to change my thinking about scale flying. If I just want a Pup look-a-like, I can keep flying my Puppeteer.

So I'd really like something a little more interesting as an intro to 1/4 scale. And, if I do break down and get the Seidel, I'd like to build something a bit more exciting to put it in. To tell the truth there just aren't that many WWI round cowls. And there are even fewer with sufficient documentation to do a really good scale build. That's why I was thinking of the triplane.

geezeraviation

My Feedback: (3)

Quite a few allied with round cowls, German not so many. The Fok DR I, E V (D VIII). D VI and the Eindecker. For a look at a really well done Eindecker look on RCSB for John Coles build in the Proctor forum. Not just another kit glued together. Inline engines are more common for German acft and some of the nose sections are hard to hide an engine in which is a bother if you dont want things hanging out that shouldnt be. The Fok DVII has a cavernous front end though its not the rarest airplane at the field on Dawn Patrol day. The SE 5a has a lot of room in the nose though mine ended up electric after overheating problems caused me to spend a year getting 11 flights on it with more dead stick landings than powered ones. It flies nice with the power off, just not very long and aerobatics are limited.
Doc

Steve Percifield

My Feedback: (14)

And, you have all the Nieuports with round engines, and the Moranes.

geezeraviation

My Feedback: (3)

And Sopwiths, dont forget the Sopwiths, or the Hanriot.
Doc

abufletcher

Take away the Nieuports and the Sopwiths and Fokkers and that's about 90% of the modeled round-cowls. So in terms of less common types you have the AVROs, the Hanriot, the Standard E-1, BAT Bantam, Salmson (not quite the same), Caudron, Bristol Scout, and a few very obscure types.

Bthe reality is that in this hobby where people have been modeling WWI aircraft ever since (and even DURING) WWI, there just aren't any "new" subjects. Or if there are there's probably a very good reason why it hasn't been modeled before. My own solution is just to model and aircraft that I like in a way that is at least somewhat novice, if only to me.

So I could do a Pup, if I really did it my own way.

geezeraviation

My Feedback: (3)

A friend of mine in Wisconsin just maidened a real nice 1/3 scale Pup yesterday. Nothing at all wrong with doing a Pup, it's a great looking great flying airplane with lots of schemes to add charachter. I often get the urge to do a BUSA in 1/6 scale so I have a smaller biplane to play with. I have a 1/8 scale Tabloid (38")on floats but it's not really a lot of fun when there's no water available.

Doc

abufletcher

For me, it takes more than a less common color scheme to make a model stand apart. And I suppose that's what I ultimately want...to stand apart from the crowd.

geezeraviation

My Feedback: (3)

During the war there werent a lot of allied aircraft that had much of an unusual color scheme. The Germans were tops at unconventional color schemes, and the Italinas werent bad at it. I'll do my 1/4 Hanriot in Italian colors, rather that than another Willie Coppens thistle.

Doc

Airwarrior

I hear that. I, for one, get kind of sick of exposed metal cowlings, and the usual "Naval 3's" A flight Pups. So I went way out in to the obscure and did "Naval 3's" C Flight.


It's different! I swears it!

geezeraviation

My Feedback: (3)

Dave, a photo would be good about now.
Doc

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

Hey Abu, how about a Fokker DVI? GTM has a great kit in 1/4 scale. They handle very well, and you can scale it to your hearts content.

abufletcher

Thanks, but I just can't look at a DVI and not see a half-done DrI or DVII! The more I think about it, the less likely I am to ever build a 1/4 scale from a kit. I'm not saying it won't happen but given that there aren't more than a half dozen kits (of the most commonly modeled aircraft) at this scale that have true scale outlines, it seems like building from plans or "rolling my own" are the most likely paths.

Airwarrior

A Flight, the one everybody does:




C Flight, mine:

[IMaGe]http://i400.photobucket.com/albums/pp84/Davemeister1/Sopwith%20Pup%20Maiden%20Flight/DSC_0885.jpg[/IMaGe]

Since the photo I added tail rigging, and a dummy engine, so it looks a little better.

The difference between the wo planes is really only in the cowl color. A Flight used red, B flight used blue, and C flight used black. C Flight also used themed names, such as Black Arrow (mine), Black Prince, Black Tulip, etc.

They are so damn cool, yet you rarely see a C flight Pup anywhere.

exfed

I don't think you can beat a Proctor kit for quality. Also, they have a very complete line of accessories and documentation data. I personally have been flying a N-28 for nearly 30 years. I did a bit of a restoration 3 years ago to address aging covering issues. Originally I powered the aircraft with a O.S. FT-160 and after the redo , I replaced it with a Saito-170. Both engines did a fine job of hauling the model around in a scale fashion. And sounded great in the mean time. Before you make your final decisions you should look into Arizona Model Aircrafters as well. They have some nice stuff as well as killer accessories. Good luck.

exfed

I don't think you can beat a Proctor kit for quality. Also, they have a very complete line of accessories and documentation data. I personally have been flying a N-28 for nearly 30 years. I did a bit of a restoration 3 years ago to address aging covering issues. Originally I powered the aircraft with a O.S. FT-160 and after the redo , I replaced it with a Saito R-170. Both engines did a fine job of hauling the model around in a scale fashion. And sounded great in the mean time. Before you make your final decisions you should look into Arizona Model Aircrafters as well. They have some nice stuff as well as killer accessories. Good luck.

smkrcflyer

How about the Ziroli PT-17? Is it a good build and how does it fly?

I intend to get into WWI bi-planes soon. I was thinking about starting with the Great Planes PT-17 ARF just to get the hang of flying a bi-plane. Then I was going to build either a Balsa USA 1/4 Nieuport or Ziroli PT-17.

abufletcher

It just blows my mind that anyone might have been flying a model for 30 years! Congratulations! But then in the last thirty years I've lived in 6 different countries...and I know that if I leave the current country Japan, my models will most likely not come with me. And I can't even guarantee that I'll still be able to do scale building (at least at my current level) in ten years.

Perhaps there's a Proctor, Mick Reeves, or GTM kit somewhere in my future, but for now I'll probably more more and more towards scratch-building those "special" models.

Madman

Well Abu it seems you have made up your mind based on this thread and yours on the Seidel. May I suggest blowing up the Replicraft plans and using the build ideas from the 1/5 Boddinton plans.

As for other ideas for 'rarer' WWI radial planes how about the Pfalz Dr.I, Pfalz D.VII or VIII, or Seimens D.III. My personal favorites are the DH.2 (how to start it without wrecking the wires getting your hand or starter out?) or the Kondor D.VI. I found the latter in the book 'Airplanes of the World' by Rolfe and Dawydoff. My grade 5 library had a copy which cought my eye and I managed to get one years later. Very little on the plane but are you not up for a challenge?

Stephen