Ever hear of a Sig Cessna 170 ?
07-31-2003, 12:45 AM
#3
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Ever hear of a Sig Cessna 170 ?
That was the old Berkeley kit. They moderized it some with a fiberglass cowl a bit after reboxing, but it still never took off in sales. You have to watch it, as some of the part numbers up near the firewall are incorrect on instructions.
I have laser cut reproductions available at present. These have slightly different parts, in that it is designed more for three channel now, instead of the single which it was introduced with.
Wm.
I have laser cut reproductions available at present. These have slightly different parts, in that it is designed more for three channel now, instead of the single which it was introduced with.
Wm.
08-02-2003, 03:30 AM
#4
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (22)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ever hear of a Sig Cessna 170 ?
I think I must be half idiot and half genius to build this thing.
Only an idiot would start it.
Only a genius could finish it.
Only an idiot would start it.
Only a genius could finish it.
08-02-2003, 07:51 AM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lincoln,
CA
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ever hear of a Sig Cessna 170 ?
It's a "builders kit" - lots of little sticks and sheets to glue up and lots of carving, shaping and sanding before you get a completed model. Most of the older Berkeley (and other kits) before "ARF's" were like this.
SIG simplified things a little after they picked up the line from Fox Manufacturing Co. (who had obtained the line from Berkeley - a.k.a. Bill Effinger - in 1959). After SIG obtained the kit line, they started providing a formed cowl (along with making a few other changes). This replaced the Berkeley method of carving and shaping the cowl from balsa blocks and made building a lot easier. I really like the old Berkeley/Fox/SIG kits, but that's what I grew up with. I'm used to taking a month (or more!) to construct a new model and actually enjoy the challenge of these "builders kits".
SIG simplified things a little after they picked up the line from Fox Manufacturing Co. (who had obtained the line from Berkeley - a.k.a. Bill Effinger - in 1959). After SIG obtained the kit line, they started providing a formed cowl (along with making a few other changes). This replaced the Berkeley method of carving and shaping the cowl from balsa blocks and made building a lot easier. I really like the old Berkeley/Fox/SIG kits, but that's what I grew up with. I'm used to taking a month (or more!) to construct a new model and actually enjoy the challenge of these "builders kits".
08-02-2003, 02:03 PM
#6
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Ever hear of a Sig Cessna 170 ?
Most of the Berkeley era kits followed a common theme in their construction methods, all depending upon who was listed designer. Henry Struck chose this model to be along the methods of the 1930's wherein you built up a frame of 1/4" square strips, and then added on semi-circular pieces to finish off the shape.
The "Lots of Wood" concept was a selling point. If you are going to obtain a kit at a then hefty price, you wanted to see inside the box and get an eyefull of what exactly was being paid for. The bigger the load, the better the price. As wood to Berkeley was near free, the more free stuff put into the box, the easier the sale. It was reported the wood used to be from old WW2 liferafts, and dunnage in cargo shipments from South America.
The company got bought up, split up three ways. As you know, Sigafoos bought a piece, Duke Fox got some, and Riley Wooten (now of Lonestar Balsa fame) did too. The Fox line ended about 1961-2. They just could not justify the costs. What had been gathered at the sale was then sent to SIG in Iowa. Wooten integrated the few control line items he was responsible for, and then quietly obsoleted his line by about 1970. SIG kept going, and improving the line they obtained.
The whole line of kits by Berkeley needed to have a sense of "Heft" as the fliers and equipment was a bit on the heavy bearing side then. AND, more wood equals HEFT, and as more wood is near free, why not. SIG had to pay for this engineering and costs, so why not eliminate some of the HEFT, and make building easier at same time. A good example to the re-engineering is the Astro-Hog, now of SIG fame, but once of the Berkeley line and designed by Fred Dunn, not Bill Deans as RCM has reported recently.
Those kits of the pre-1970's were nothing resembling an ARF.
Wm.
The "Lots of Wood" concept was a selling point. If you are going to obtain a kit at a then hefty price, you wanted to see inside the box and get an eyefull of what exactly was being paid for. The bigger the load, the better the price. As wood to Berkeley was near free, the more free stuff put into the box, the easier the sale. It was reported the wood used to be from old WW2 liferafts, and dunnage in cargo shipments from South America.
The company got bought up, split up three ways. As you know, Sigafoos bought a piece, Duke Fox got some, and Riley Wooten (now of Lonestar Balsa fame) did too. The Fox line ended about 1961-2. They just could not justify the costs. What had been gathered at the sale was then sent to SIG in Iowa. Wooten integrated the few control line items he was responsible for, and then quietly obsoleted his line by about 1970. SIG kept going, and improving the line they obtained.
The whole line of kits by Berkeley needed to have a sense of "Heft" as the fliers and equipment was a bit on the heavy bearing side then. AND, more wood equals HEFT, and as more wood is near free, why not. SIG had to pay for this engineering and costs, so why not eliminate some of the HEFT, and make building easier at same time. A good example to the re-engineering is the Astro-Hog, now of SIG fame, but once of the Berkeley line and designed by Fred Dunn, not Bill Deans as RCM has reported recently.
Those kits of the pre-1970's were nothing resembling an ARF.
Wm.
08-02-2003, 02:12 PM
#7
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (22)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ever hear of a Sig Cessna 170 ?
Actually, I do enjoy the more difficult kits. That seems to be my problem. I have a collection of older kits and I have built a couple of "builders" kits before.
I have a simulator. I can recreate any thrill on the simulator but one. The thrill of flying a beautiful scale ship.
But, I can't knock them out in a month. It is very common for me to spend a year building one. Now, I don't build ever day, or even every week. For that matter, I might not build for a month or two. I have a nice shop, and a project can remain in place without be disturbed for extended periods. Therefor, I don't feel rushed, or a need to hurry. I only work when the mood strikes me.
I do believe that building these "builders" kits is a one way street. Once you build a few, you can never go back to those square boxes with a turtle deck . They just don't cut it.
Right now, there is a 3/4 built Goldberg Chipmunk on the table. I can't manage to finish it. I know it will be a nice, fun aerobat that will help round out the fleet. But it is such a "box" and unscale that I can't stay interested in it. I need to knock it out. The only incentive is that a nice scale project is next. Perhaps the 170.
I have a simulator. I can recreate any thrill on the simulator but one. The thrill of flying a beautiful scale ship.
But, I can't knock them out in a month. It is very common for me to spend a year building one. Now, I don't build ever day, or even every week. For that matter, I might not build for a month or two. I have a nice shop, and a project can remain in place without be disturbed for extended periods. Therefor, I don't feel rushed, or a need to hurry. I only work when the mood strikes me.
I do believe that building these "builders" kits is a one way street. Once you build a few, you can never go back to those square boxes with a turtle deck . They just don't cut it.
Right now, there is a 3/4 built Goldberg Chipmunk on the table. I can't manage to finish it. I know it will be a nice, fun aerobat that will help round out the fleet. But it is such a "box" and unscale that I can't stay interested in it. I need to knock it out. The only incentive is that a nice scale project is next. Perhaps the 170.
08-02-2003, 03:49 PM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lincoln,
CA
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ever hear of a Sig Cessna 170 ?
"I do believe that building these "builders" kits is a one way street. Once you build a few, you can never go back to those square boxes with a turtle deck . They just don't cut it."
Kingwoodbarney --
I know exactly what you mean - they're addictive!
I just love the old methods of building (with the exception of some of the old Cleveland kits - I never was nuts about "printwood" and I definitely don't like built-up wing ribs! Give me "punch n' crunch" (die-cut parts) any day!
I bought one of those ARF's awhile back but I still haven't put it together. I'm afraid I might get to like it and that would change the way I've built for 50 years now. Might spoil my reputation!
linclogs
Kingwoodbarney --
I know exactly what you mean - they're addictive!
I just love the old methods of building (with the exception of some of the old Cleveland kits - I never was nuts about "printwood" and I definitely don't like built-up wing ribs! Give me "punch n' crunch" (die-cut parts) any day!
I bought one of those ARF's awhile back but I still haven't put it together. I'm afraid I might get to like it and that would change the way I've built for 50 years now. Might spoil my reputation!
linclogs
08-02-2003, 03:59 PM
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lincoln,
CA
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ever hear of a Sig Cessna 170 ?
By the way, I forgot to mention that I bought the last set of plans for the Cessna 170 from SIG when you could still buy just the plans of the old Berkeley kits that SIG picked up. This was back in the late 70's or early 80's. When I had written to SIG inquiring about obtaining the plan, they told me they had only 1 set left and I jumped on them. But as I recall, there was a huge error on them. Something about the relationship between the elevator and rudder hinge lines. They were different depending on whether you were looking at the side view or the top view. A couple of years ago I bought one of the original Berkeley kits of this model and the plans in the kit are accurate. But the funny thing was, the plans I got from SIG still said "Berkeley" on them. So the plan I got from SIG must have been a "transition set", before they put the SIG name on them but after some of it had been redrawn.
If you get a chance, take a peek at your plan and see if you see this difference in the elevator and rudder hinge lines. I'm interested in knowing if they corrected that in their version of the Cessna 170.
If you get a chance, take a peek at your plan and see if you see this difference in the elevator and rudder hinge lines. I'm interested in knowing if they corrected that in their version of the Cessna 170.
08-03-2003, 12:44 AM
#10
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (22)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ever hear of a Sig Cessna 170 ?
The plans say "SIG". There is something funny going on around the tail. Towards the tail of the plane, it looks as though the top view and side view are not aligned with each other. But towards the nose, it appears that they are.
That really doesn't bother me. I've worked "off the map" before. What does bother me is this: There are dowels in the fuselage for attaching the wing with rubber bands. And the dowels are below the windows. P.U. Looks like everything around the cabin is balsa, no ply . I'll probably change that a little and try to use wing bolts and a dowel up front.... Maybe.
The wood looks like new and the die cutting is sharp. The decals look like they were printed yesterday. There isn't an instruction book. But there are instructions printed right on the plans. They are here and there in little clusters. I have Berkeley Navion that is the same way.
That really doesn't bother me. I've worked "off the map" before. What does bother me is this: There are dowels in the fuselage for attaching the wing with rubber bands. And the dowels are below the windows. P.U. Looks like everything around the cabin is balsa, no ply . I'll probably change that a little and try to use wing bolts and a dowel up front.... Maybe.
The wood looks like new and the die cutting is sharp. The decals look like they were printed yesterday. There isn't an instruction book. But there are instructions printed right on the plans. They are here and there in little clusters. I have Berkeley Navion that is the same way.
08-03-2003, 04:11 PM
#11
Preserve that Collectible Kit!!
You can have the plans copied and use copies to work on. You can electrostatically copy the die-cut printwood sheets and transfer the lines to new sheet balsa using laquer thinner dampened cotton or an old sock. Berkeley kits usually don't include drawings of all diecut parts on the plans. You can use a scanner to copy decals and make wing numerals using trim film. The intact kit may be worth $200+ to a collector especially if kitbox looks reasonably good.
I have a lot of vintage Berkeley, Jetco and Flyline kits and may keep some of them intact this way. Having the plans copied is probably a good idea in case you want to share or sell them.
I have a lot of vintage Berkeley, Jetco and Flyline kits and may keep some of them intact this way. Having the plans copied is probably a good idea in case you want to share or sell them.
08-03-2003, 11:35 PM
#12
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Ever hear of a Sig Cessna 170 ?
Boy:
You guys must expect perfection. Got to remember, don't matter what the plans indicate for positions, it is how the parts fit that really will determine where they are glued in.
I only have Berkeley plans with the New York and the Arkansas address anymore. I have a couple of the re-drawn ones from SIG. From what I can tell, it looks like someone at SIG just overlayed an original plan, and then began tracing on lines into new positions. I did this many years ago in my drafting career, and is easy to mis-interpret lines. In examining the Cessna 170 plans, there are some omissions between views, but again it only matters how well the parts fit into the assigned area. If it "about" fits, then is has to be correct in the older models.
I did a redraw of the whole plan and adjusted the parts to be cut correctly. Most times, in comparing the new parts to the die cut originals, the adjustment was less than 1/16" in any direction. The original parts would have fit, but it also would have resulted in a lumpy-bumpy surface. The original parts are happily back in the original box now. As Linclogs mentioned you have to carefully fit the part before gluing into place.
Various places on the internet are selling copies from the original plans and claiming you can build another from them. I doubt so. The fuselage sections did not proportion out to the top and side views. The ribs are not shown either. So, there is a lot of interpretation. As mentioned, you really need a kit to reproduce another kit. How would you replicate one of the carved fuselage models without having an original in hand?
And for Linclogs, I still have the 15 cent credit slip on my order of plans via SIG. On it is noted that it is good on yet another order of Berkeley plans. As I ordered one of everyone they had at the time, all I could get was another duplicate. As of two-three months ago, SIG still does have a few of the controlliner plans available. You have to telephone personally, and I think they were going for less than $2 each.
Wm.
You guys must expect perfection. Got to remember, don't matter what the plans indicate for positions, it is how the parts fit that really will determine where they are glued in.
I only have Berkeley plans with the New York and the Arkansas address anymore. I have a couple of the re-drawn ones from SIG. From what I can tell, it looks like someone at SIG just overlayed an original plan, and then began tracing on lines into new positions. I did this many years ago in my drafting career, and is easy to mis-interpret lines. In examining the Cessna 170 plans, there are some omissions between views, but again it only matters how well the parts fit into the assigned area. If it "about" fits, then is has to be correct in the older models.
I did a redraw of the whole plan and adjusted the parts to be cut correctly. Most times, in comparing the new parts to the die cut originals, the adjustment was less than 1/16" in any direction. The original parts would have fit, but it also would have resulted in a lumpy-bumpy surface. The original parts are happily back in the original box now. As Linclogs mentioned you have to carefully fit the part before gluing into place.
Various places on the internet are selling copies from the original plans and claiming you can build another from them. I doubt so. The fuselage sections did not proportion out to the top and side views. The ribs are not shown either. So, there is a lot of interpretation. As mentioned, you really need a kit to reproduce another kit. How would you replicate one of the carved fuselage models without having an original in hand?
And for Linclogs, I still have the 15 cent credit slip on my order of plans via SIG. On it is noted that it is good on yet another order of Berkeley plans. As I ordered one of everyone they had at the time, all I could get was another duplicate. As of two-three months ago, SIG still does have a few of the controlliner plans available. You have to telephone personally, and I think they were going for less than $2 each.
Wm.
08-04-2003, 11:35 PM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lincoln,
CA
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ever hear of a Sig Cessna 170 ?
Hey William -- do you think SIG might still honor that 15 cent credit slip???
You may recall I had asked you (and others) quite a few months ago about having this plan copied. Problem is, this plan is about 38" wide (shortest dimension) and I could not find anyone that could make a copy over 36" wide.
Today I went to an old (at least 25 years - maybe older) bluprint/copy service company in Sacramento to show them the plan and ask about getting copies made. They basically said the same thing - 36" wide is the maximum size that can be COPIED on a single sheet. So I asked how did Berkeley get the plans for their kits? Copyright date on the plan is 1954 so there must have been some way to do it back then. The answer I got was that the plan could NOT be a copy but actually an original print. In other words, the printing press (or whatever kind of printing machine) that printed the plan put them out one-at-a-time. It wasn't copied from a master.
They also told me there is a photo process that can be used, but they quoted me "$75 - $80" for one (1) copy. Just seems a little bit much for me.
What they said they could do is make a "spliced copy". By folding the plan in half, they make two smaller copies (of each half) then overlap and splice them together. But this is spliced professionally - not just taped together. Total cost for doing it this way is $13.00 - more my speed. Anyway, I'm having them do that and will report my observations when I get it back. If successful, I've also got an original plan of DeBolt's Sonic Cruiser that I want to get done and it has the same problem - it's a 38" wide plan.
Another thing I've been considering is cutting up the plan and by moving some of the components around, pasting it to fit a 36" wide sheet. But I didn't want to do that to the original. So I'm having 2 spliced copies made - one to build on and one to play with.
Jon
You may recall I had asked you (and others) quite a few months ago about having this plan copied. Problem is, this plan is about 38" wide (shortest dimension) and I could not find anyone that could make a copy over 36" wide.
Today I went to an old (at least 25 years - maybe older) bluprint/copy service company in Sacramento to show them the plan and ask about getting copies made. They basically said the same thing - 36" wide is the maximum size that can be COPIED on a single sheet. So I asked how did Berkeley get the plans for their kits? Copyright date on the plan is 1954 so there must have been some way to do it back then. The answer I got was that the plan could NOT be a copy but actually an original print. In other words, the printing press (or whatever kind of printing machine) that printed the plan put them out one-at-a-time. It wasn't copied from a master.
They also told me there is a photo process that can be used, but they quoted me "$75 - $80" for one (1) copy. Just seems a little bit much for me.
What they said they could do is make a "spliced copy". By folding the plan in half, they make two smaller copies (of each half) then overlap and splice them together. But this is spliced professionally - not just taped together. Total cost for doing it this way is $13.00 - more my speed. Anyway, I'm having them do that and will report my observations when I get it back. If successful, I've also got an original plan of DeBolt's Sonic Cruiser that I want to get done and it has the same problem - it's a 38" wide plan.
Another thing I've been considering is cutting up the plan and by moving some of the components around, pasting it to fit a 36" wide sheet. But I didn't want to do that to the original. So I'm having 2 spliced copies made - one to build on and one to play with.
Jon
08-05-2003, 12:36 AM
#14
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Ever hear of a Sig Cessna 170 ?
Jon:
You are so correct. The plan was done via the offset process. Can't remember exact dimensions, but 38 1/2" was a standard sheet back then. It was expected that 1/4" would be trimmed off to true up everything.
I located an outfit in downtown Los Angeles who has a 60" wide Xerox machine about 6 months ago. Have not been to the location with my 170 plan, or the others I have that big. TopFlite used to have their plans done via offset, but we may then have to go to Chicago to get a copy.
I presume what the blueprint place is discussing is a standard photographic negative. They then can run it through a blueprint machine at pennies per square foot on the copy.
I also have a coupon good for 50 cents off on another Sure-Flite model purchase, if used at the same store I bought the kit at. I hated the singular one I bought, as nothing fit, and swore never to deal with them again.
Wm.
You are so correct. The plan was done via the offset process. Can't remember exact dimensions, but 38 1/2" was a standard sheet back then. It was expected that 1/4" would be trimmed off to true up everything.
I located an outfit in downtown Los Angeles who has a 60" wide Xerox machine about 6 months ago. Have not been to the location with my 170 plan, or the others I have that big. TopFlite used to have their plans done via offset, but we may then have to go to Chicago to get a copy.
I presume what the blueprint place is discussing is a standard photographic negative. They then can run it through a blueprint machine at pennies per square foot on the copy.
I also have a coupon good for 50 cents off on another Sure-Flite model purchase, if used at the same store I bought the kit at. I hated the singular one I bought, as nothing fit, and swore never to deal with them again.
Wm.
08-06-2003, 04:08 PM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lincoln,
CA
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ever hear of a Sig Cessna 170 ?
Kingwoodbarney --
You mentioned, "The decals look like they were printed yesterday" regarding the decals in your kit. If you did decide to build the model, a few words of advice. Use the decals only as masters to make new ones. My experience with old waterslide decals is not good. Even though they look new, I've had problems with some of them totally disintegrating when you put them in water. Upon close examination, they looked like they just broke up into thousands of nearly microscopic particles. Of course, once that happens, then you no longer have them to make copies from. So, if you were going to try to use them, at least make copies of them first.
William --
Can you provide any information about the company in LA that could do the 60" wide copies? (Address, phone number, website?) I'd like to try to contact them to see what they have to say. Or maybe they can give me clues for finding someone with similiar equipment in my area.
Was the Sure-Flite kit one of the foam models or built-up balsa? I built one of their all-balsa Aeronca Champs (52" span?) back in the late 70's or early 80's. That was a pretty good kit. I didn't have any problems with the pieces fitting accurately with that particular kit. I also had one of their foam Spitfire's and it was a real pig to fly. Loved to snap roll if you slowed it down too much - like when landing!
I got a message on my answering machine that the spliced copies of my 170 plans are ready to be picked up. I'll get them later today and then let you know what I think of them.
Jon
You mentioned, "The decals look like they were printed yesterday" regarding the decals in your kit. If you did decide to build the model, a few words of advice. Use the decals only as masters to make new ones. My experience with old waterslide decals is not good. Even though they look new, I've had problems with some of them totally disintegrating when you put them in water. Upon close examination, they looked like they just broke up into thousands of nearly microscopic particles. Of course, once that happens, then you no longer have them to make copies from. So, if you were going to try to use them, at least make copies of them first.
William --
Can you provide any information about the company in LA that could do the 60" wide copies? (Address, phone number, website?) I'd like to try to contact them to see what they have to say. Or maybe they can give me clues for finding someone with similiar equipment in my area.
Was the Sure-Flite kit one of the foam models or built-up balsa? I built one of their all-balsa Aeronca Champs (52" span?) back in the late 70's or early 80's. That was a pretty good kit. I didn't have any problems with the pieces fitting accurately with that particular kit. I also had one of their foam Spitfire's and it was a real pig to fly. Loved to snap roll if you slowed it down too much - like when landing!
I got a message on my answering machine that the spliced copies of my 170 plans are ready to be picked up. I'll get them later today and then let you know what I think of them.
Jon
08-08-2003, 01:56 AM
#16
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Ever hear of a Sig Cessna 170 ?
You know Jon, I think you are correct. Story I heard was Sure-Flite was operating out of a hangar at Flabob airport near Riverside. They had a fire, and wholesaled out what was there, cobbled together enough to make a few of the Aeronca kits, and then sold them "As-Is, As delived, Marked down, what you see if what you get" quality. Man it was a struggle to get the fuselage together. Had to add in splices, and cut new wood in a couple places too. It was a 100% balsa kit and the wing went together fine. The box cited engines of .10 to .20 size. I installed an old K&B .19 and it took off like a rocket. Too much power.
The firm later moved into another building about 20 miles from there, reengineered the kit (and others) and upped the prices. I think my Aeronca cost about $15-20 at the time. I think they moved to Lake Elsinore now.
As to copiers, I cheated. I went to Xerox web site, contacted sales, and pretended to be interested in one of their huge map sized copiers. HOWEVER, I wanted to see one in operation prior to purchasing. They let me know of one downtown Los Angeles. I cannot remember the model number, but the very wide copiers are listed still at the Xerox site. Just contact them to locate a dealer, and a demo for one in Sacto area.
Wm.
The firm later moved into another building about 20 miles from there, reengineered the kit (and others) and upped the prices. I think my Aeronca cost about $15-20 at the time. I think they moved to Lake Elsinore now.
As to copiers, I cheated. I went to Xerox web site, contacted sales, and pretended to be interested in one of their huge map sized copiers. HOWEVER, I wanted to see one in operation prior to purchasing. They let me know of one downtown Los Angeles. I cannot remember the model number, but the very wide copiers are listed still at the Xerox site. Just contact them to locate a dealer, and a demo for one in Sacto area.
Wm.
08-09-2003, 04:50 AM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lincoln,
CA
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ever hear of a Sig Cessna 170 ?
William (and anyone else interested) --
The spliced plans came out pretty good. Not perfect, but certainly more than good enough to build on.
The lines match perfectly in the middle but as you move towards the outside of the plan, you wind up with about a 1/16" error at either side. But the error seems to only affect about the last 4" to 6" of both sides of the paper. The gentleman that did the work was thoughtful in his planning. He made the splice horizontally just above the fuselage side view, so the only things that are really affected by this error is the drawing of the cowl cross sections shown on the left side and a little of the rudder on the right side. Neither really pose a problem for me as I have a fiberglass cowl (I don't need the cowl cross sections shown) and, of course since you'd be building the rudder using die-cut parts, it's like you said in one of your earlier posts, "Got to remember, don't matter what the plans indicate for positions, it is how the parts fit that really will determine where they are glued in".
Overall, I am pleased with the results. And, it looks so nice and clean and the lines are really sharp. It always amazes me how much better the copies look than the originals!
Since I got a 2nd spliced copy to do a "cut and paste", I can correct the error on those affected components. When I cut them out to move them around, I'll just re-align them to eliminate the error. What I'll wind up with is a plan that will not be an exact copy of the original Berkeley plan, but will have every component - just stretched out horizontally somewhat so that everything will fit on a 36" wide sheet. By having the plan on common sized paper and tracings of the die-cut parts to use as templates, it would then be easy for someone to scratchbuild the model at a reasonable price, without having to worry about the hassle of trying to get a plan that is oversized.
I mentioned having a fiberglass cowl for this model. I had run across a project in the April 1995 issue of RC Modeler for a 1/6 scale Cessna O1E/L-19 Bird Dog. I never really paid much attention before but when I really started looking, I believe the Bird Dog is pretty much (NOT exactly but very close) to being the same airframe as the 170, except the fuselage does not taper from the trailing edge of the wing to the fin. Instead, the fuselage is flat on the top from the base of the rear window to the fin. This was to allow for the "observation" configuration. But the wing, vertical and horizontal stabilizers, landing gear and cowl all look like straight 170 parts. The plans in RCM stated there was a cowl available from Fiberglass Specialities (http://www.fiberglassspecialtiesinc.com/). When I checked their website, sure enough - they still offered the cowl for the Bird Dog (part# RCM-1189). I ordered one and, when you hold it over the plan, once trimmed it appears it would look identical to the size and shape shown for Berkeley's 170. Check out this link to a photo of how this looks (from another thread I had posted about the 170):
http://www.rcuniverse.com/attachment...&postid=496768
This will save the time of carving and sanding a cowl from the balsa blocks provided in the Berkeley kit.
What I'm looking for now is an easy (and light weight) way to duplicate the corrugated control surfaces. Berkeley's method was to glue on tiny sticks. SIG once made crimped plastic sheets just for this purpose, but discontinued them several years ago.
The spliced plans came out pretty good. Not perfect, but certainly more than good enough to build on.
The lines match perfectly in the middle but as you move towards the outside of the plan, you wind up with about a 1/16" error at either side. But the error seems to only affect about the last 4" to 6" of both sides of the paper. The gentleman that did the work was thoughtful in his planning. He made the splice horizontally just above the fuselage side view, so the only things that are really affected by this error is the drawing of the cowl cross sections shown on the left side and a little of the rudder on the right side. Neither really pose a problem for me as I have a fiberglass cowl (I don't need the cowl cross sections shown) and, of course since you'd be building the rudder using die-cut parts, it's like you said in one of your earlier posts, "Got to remember, don't matter what the plans indicate for positions, it is how the parts fit that really will determine where they are glued in".
Overall, I am pleased with the results. And, it looks so nice and clean and the lines are really sharp. It always amazes me how much better the copies look than the originals!
Since I got a 2nd spliced copy to do a "cut and paste", I can correct the error on those affected components. When I cut them out to move them around, I'll just re-align them to eliminate the error. What I'll wind up with is a plan that will not be an exact copy of the original Berkeley plan, but will have every component - just stretched out horizontally somewhat so that everything will fit on a 36" wide sheet. By having the plan on common sized paper and tracings of the die-cut parts to use as templates, it would then be easy for someone to scratchbuild the model at a reasonable price, without having to worry about the hassle of trying to get a plan that is oversized.
I mentioned having a fiberglass cowl for this model. I had run across a project in the April 1995 issue of RC Modeler for a 1/6 scale Cessna O1E/L-19 Bird Dog. I never really paid much attention before but when I really started looking, I believe the Bird Dog is pretty much (NOT exactly but very close) to being the same airframe as the 170, except the fuselage does not taper from the trailing edge of the wing to the fin. Instead, the fuselage is flat on the top from the base of the rear window to the fin. This was to allow for the "observation" configuration. But the wing, vertical and horizontal stabilizers, landing gear and cowl all look like straight 170 parts. The plans in RCM stated there was a cowl available from Fiberglass Specialities (http://www.fiberglassspecialtiesinc.com/). When I checked their website, sure enough - they still offered the cowl for the Bird Dog (part# RCM-1189). I ordered one and, when you hold it over the plan, once trimmed it appears it would look identical to the size and shape shown for Berkeley's 170. Check out this link to a photo of how this looks (from another thread I had posted about the 170):
http://www.rcuniverse.com/attachment...&postid=496768
This will save the time of carving and sanding a cowl from the balsa blocks provided in the Berkeley kit.
What I'm looking for now is an easy (and light weight) way to duplicate the corrugated control surfaces. Berkeley's method was to glue on tiny sticks. SIG once made crimped plastic sheets just for this purpose, but discontinued them several years ago.
08-09-2003, 05:37 PM
#18
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Ever hear of a Sig Cessna 170 ?
Jon:
A couple years back, I went to the local blueprint shop and had them do as you mentioned. Replicate an extra wide sheet as two. The shop has some multi-million dollar machine it looked, but the results always contained some stretch, shaddowing or arcing. You just could not find a place in which to cut either sheet, and then spice into the other. The lines would align here, but not there.
The Cessna 170 plans were one which I knew would not copy easily. On the original sheet, there was a slippage during printing, and a "Zee" was created in line connections. I did not pop out the original parts from their die-cut frames, but instead compared them to the counterpart as drawn on the plan. In many instances, they "resembled" the shown parts in the sections. Thus it is to your guess as to how they would fit. That is when I decided to just re-draw the whole thing. I have a two sheet set of plans available.
Having the resources here, I replicated most all of the parts, and had them laser cut about two months ago using all new wood. (The old original parts were then put back into the box and stored away again) Three new kits were cut and none of which has been fully built nor flown as of today. If any reader would like a set, I can arrange to get another set of parts cut. We had a few sheets of wood go up in flames, and one was set on cock-eyed and ruined the parts and the sheet. These need to be cut over again. As long as someone has plans, I can cut them some parts. Am planning on making another run of wood parts for the Jetco Navigator in September, and will be cutting original and replacements for the Cessna then too. HOWEVER, there is a catch phrase in this. I want a digital picture of the completed model.
As you mentioned, I have an interest in the 72 inch span big Berkeley Bird-Dog kit 2-5. Only thing I have at present is an advertisement for it from a November 1960 issue of M.A.N. that indicates a Fort Smith address, home of Fox models. Would like to find out if there is any compatibility of parts between the Cessna 170 and the big Bird-Dog.
Your picture of the fiberglass item looks a good copy to me. A local has made up a plug for the Cessna 170 cowling from junk pieces of balsa wood, and is going to vac-u-form it for an electric powered model. I never thought to ask him about the wheel pants. To purchase the big slabs of wood at retail once included in the original kit would cost more than a fiberglass reproduction my thought.
The way we replicated the triangular sections in the rudder and elevators was to use a razor plane on the edge of some scrap balsa sheet. If used on edge, it cut the triangular section about 1/32" high by 1/16" wide. You know that litterally, you can make more of these strips to different sizes than is required for one model.
I have the smaller 36 inch span model replicated, and nearly 100 of these were sold during 2001. Now it is time to be shifting my interest on to the larger one again.
Wm.
A couple years back, I went to the local blueprint shop and had them do as you mentioned. Replicate an extra wide sheet as two. The shop has some multi-million dollar machine it looked, but the results always contained some stretch, shaddowing or arcing. You just could not find a place in which to cut either sheet, and then spice into the other. The lines would align here, but not there.
The Cessna 170 plans were one which I knew would not copy easily. On the original sheet, there was a slippage during printing, and a "Zee" was created in line connections. I did not pop out the original parts from their die-cut frames, but instead compared them to the counterpart as drawn on the plan. In many instances, they "resembled" the shown parts in the sections. Thus it is to your guess as to how they would fit. That is when I decided to just re-draw the whole thing. I have a two sheet set of plans available.
Having the resources here, I replicated most all of the parts, and had them laser cut about two months ago using all new wood. (The old original parts were then put back into the box and stored away again) Three new kits were cut and none of which has been fully built nor flown as of today. If any reader would like a set, I can arrange to get another set of parts cut. We had a few sheets of wood go up in flames, and one was set on cock-eyed and ruined the parts and the sheet. These need to be cut over again. As long as someone has plans, I can cut them some parts. Am planning on making another run of wood parts for the Jetco Navigator in September, and will be cutting original and replacements for the Cessna then too. HOWEVER, there is a catch phrase in this. I want a digital picture of the completed model.
As you mentioned, I have an interest in the 72 inch span big Berkeley Bird-Dog kit 2-5. Only thing I have at present is an advertisement for it from a November 1960 issue of M.A.N. that indicates a Fort Smith address, home of Fox models. Would like to find out if there is any compatibility of parts between the Cessna 170 and the big Bird-Dog.
Your picture of the fiberglass item looks a good copy to me. A local has made up a plug for the Cessna 170 cowling from junk pieces of balsa wood, and is going to vac-u-form it for an electric powered model. I never thought to ask him about the wheel pants. To purchase the big slabs of wood at retail once included in the original kit would cost more than a fiberglass reproduction my thought.
The way we replicated the triangular sections in the rudder and elevators was to use a razor plane on the edge of some scrap balsa sheet. If used on edge, it cut the triangular section about 1/32" high by 1/16" wide. You know that litterally, you can make more of these strips to different sizes than is required for one model.
I have the smaller 36 inch span model replicated, and nearly 100 of these were sold during 2001. Now it is time to be shifting my interest on to the larger one again.
Wm.
08-19-2003, 01:59 AM
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lincoln,
CA
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ever hear of a Sig Cessna 170 ?
This thread has gotten a little "long in the tooth" but for anyone still interested, I got my first copy today of the Cessna 170 plans that are now printable on 36" wide paper.
I spent quite a few hours cutting and pasting to get all the components of the original Berkeley plan to fit onto 36" wide paper. No parts of the original plan have been left out - some have just been moved around. I accomplished this by adding about 10" total to the length (horizontally) of the original plan while reducing the width (vertically) by nearly 3". The detail drawings of the fuselage construction, landing gear installation and wheel installation were moved to the left side of the plan ("stacked" vertically), and the rudder tab was attached to the rudder on the right side. The building instructions were re-arranged and made to fit in the lower right-hand corner, along with the box which shows the Berkeley logo. I was also able to "correct" the error from the splice (mentioned in an earlier post, above).
The results are beautiful. Everything clean, clear and bright, and now reproducible on economical 36" wide paper!
I was so pleased with the results that I now have a set of original DeBolt Sonic Cruiser plans being made up (a "spliced" copy) so I can do the same "cut and paste" with them. They also have the same problem - the plan is 38" wide.
I spent quite a few hours cutting and pasting to get all the components of the original Berkeley plan to fit onto 36" wide paper. No parts of the original plan have been left out - some have just been moved around. I accomplished this by adding about 10" total to the length (horizontally) of the original plan while reducing the width (vertically) by nearly 3". The detail drawings of the fuselage construction, landing gear installation and wheel installation were moved to the left side of the plan ("stacked" vertically), and the rudder tab was attached to the rudder on the right side. The building instructions were re-arranged and made to fit in the lower right-hand corner, along with the box which shows the Berkeley logo. I was also able to "correct" the error from the splice (mentioned in an earlier post, above).
The results are beautiful. Everything clean, clear and bright, and now reproducible on economical 36" wide paper!
I was so pleased with the results that I now have a set of original DeBolt Sonic Cruiser plans being made up (a "spliced" copy) so I can do the same "cut and paste" with them. They also have the same problem - the plan is 38" wide.
08-22-2003, 03:59 AM
#20
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Jon
Was made aware of yet another system out there, though at present do not know where to find such. Seems the dress making (or apparel business in general) uses real wise plotters and scanners for one-off designs. They make up something on the computer then plot it out on either paper, cardboard or fabric at widths from 54 inches to 90 inches wide.
They pin up a dress onto a model (female) then disassemble teh dress, run it through a large format scanner, and then through one of these large sized plotters. How about instead of a pieces of a dress, they run through a large plan, then plot out. I understand these are in garment districts, and may have to look up one while in Los Angeles. Lectra seems to be a big name in this routine. The plotters inkjet on the pattern, and pen plot on the cutting lines. They also have a system in that it will do the actual cutting of the fabric with a knife up to 2 inches thick.
May be a short cut as to laser cutting.
Going to have to do some investigation now.
Wm.
They pin up a dress onto a model (female) then disassemble teh dress, run it through a large format scanner, and then through one of these large sized plotters. How about instead of a pieces of a dress, they run through a large plan, then plot out. I understand these are in garment districts, and may have to look up one while in Los Angeles. Lectra seems to be a big name in this routine. The plotters inkjet on the pattern, and pen plot on the cutting lines. They also have a system in that it will do the actual cutting of the fabric with a knife up to 2 inches thick.
May be a short cut as to laser cutting.
Going to have to do some investigation now.
Wm.
08-22-2003, 01:11 PM
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lincoln,
CA
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ever hear of a Sig Cessna 170 ?
William --
That's interesting. Thinking outside the box - I like that.
In my quest to get the copies of the larger size plans, I was surprised to learn how one industry knows almost nothing about the other. In this case, there is the "printing trade" and there are the "copier people" but one knows almost nothing about the other! I suspect what you stumbled onto is probably the same. Let us know if you find out anything.
Jon
That's interesting. Thinking outside the box - I like that.
In my quest to get the copies of the larger size plans, I was surprised to learn how one industry knows almost nothing about the other. In this case, there is the "printing trade" and there are the "copier people" but one knows almost nothing about the other! I suspect what you stumbled onto is probably the same. Let us know if you find out anything.
Jon
10-03-2003, 01:20 PM
#23
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Torrington,
CT
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Ever hear of a Sig Cessna 170 ?
I just heard from Northeast Screen Graphics, the price of a set of decals that I had dropped off at their establishment. These are the original that came with the Berkley kit and in good shape. Hold onto your hat!! The quote is $145.00 a set. Whow.
Jim
Jim
10-03-2003, 01:55 PM
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lincoln,
CA
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Ever hear of a Sig Cessna 170 ?
Jim --
So why not just get some of the decal paper available and have some printed? They make the paper for color inkjet or laser printers and you could scan the old decals from the kit as masters to print from.
As I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread, old water slide decals don't always work well, even if they look new. But you could uses them as a master for printing new ones.
So why not just get some of the decal paper available and have some printed? They make the paper for color inkjet or laser printers and you could scan the old decals from the kit as masters to print from.
As I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread, old water slide decals don't always work well, even if they look new. But you could uses them as a master for printing new ones.