GianFrancesco

Only one photo I have taken at the Alb. CI of the Kracow Museum show nails;


I suppose you have already seen the very clear photos of the B1 of the Heeresgeschichtliche Museum von Wien (http://www.wwi-models.org/app/sbj/sr...List&subjId=15) where the rows of nails are very evident and look running along the edges of the various panels, formers and stringers; this was the schema that I have followed.

GianFrancesco

The DF in this case is of small help; The only picture from the CI DF that show some nails in the nose area is this:

Nieuport nut

My Feedback: (10)

I also wonder how much the current appearance, 80 years later, of these nails corresponds with the original appearance? I just think about some fasteners in furniture I see in antique stores compared with what I'm pretty sure it looked like when new! My guess is that they are "blacker" and have stained the wood as they have aged/corroded.

Martin

abufletcher

I'm sure you're right. The temptation is strong to model precisely what we see in museums, even if what we see there is a 90 year-old relic.

abufletcher

Without access to an actual C1, placement of the nail lines is at best a "historically guided fiction." But here's what I've come up with and I can at least claim that no of these lines are at odds with the photos I've found. Most reflect the Swedish BII in the Mrozowski Albatros BII book. The red lines indicate single lines of nails and the blue show where the builders used double lines of nails (alternating in a VVV pattern).

In the end, I decided to go back to the permanent (black) marker idea that I used before but will make smaller dots for a more subtle effect. The mechanical pencil dots are almost impossible to see against the dark stain.

abufletcher

I'm using some very old heavy weight silkspan to represent the cloth reinforcing strips on the edges of the CI fuselage. I'll apply by painting on a thin line of PU, then laying down the silkspan then applying another coat of PU.

Trev

Just wanted to drop in with a quick hello Abu. I've been looking into this thread every now and again and its impressive to see this project take shape. A truly stunning build and also in-depth documentation of the C1’s specific features.
The wood stain effect on the fuse is very convincing, looks great!
Nice idea with the silkspan reinforcement strips, will this material be transluscent after PU is applied?
Incidentally, I was recently at the Krakow Aviation museum and took lots of pictures of both the remaining C1 fuselage and the beautifully restored BII type (its a shame the C1 wings were lost!).
You probably already have a lot of photo-documentation, however if there’s anything I could contribute I’d be happy to!

abufletcher

Thanks, Trev, you long lost soul! Any photos you can send my way would be greatly appreciated ( [email protected] ). I wish I had more free time in July, when I'll be in the Mannheim area for a conference, to meet up with you in person. I'm hoping I can send a day or two with Chris and the gang up near Weeze.

The silkspan because "almost transparent" which in some ways only adds to the effect. It's details like these that can make or break a WWI model. In fact, most WWI models end up looking a little "thin" on surface detail. People just slap on some solartex and figure that's good enough. But those of us who've seen fabric covered aircraft in person, know that there's quite a bit of "messy texture" to the surface with seams and reinforcing patches and whatnot. On the CI, being all ply, I need to put the detail right onto the ply. And these "cloth" seams are just what it needs to give it life. The nails will also help break up the surface.

Mein Duff

Don, It's great that you have an appreciation of the subtle surface details that make or break a true scale model , at least from first appearances. If the aircraft corresponds to scale outlines and photo documentation only you will know (unless being judged).
I agree that so many pilots simply get tired of adding the subtle detail that really transforms a model to believability, where it really is hard to tell if it's is a model or not...thats where I get a big rush...

I've been trying to put together a Scale Only Biplane Fly-In event here in Nor. Cal this fall and am having a hard time finding even ten pilots that have scale Biplanes that aren't ARF's...I'm trying to promote more scale building and afford a venue where scalers can show and tell and fly...damn those ARF kits...they are a great introduction to but we need to take it a step further....

keep up the good work

abufletcher

I'm always blown away by "builders" who argue that biplanes (or Lord forbid a triplane) are too tedious because you have to build two wings! That's the very least of the work involved! And I think this explains why so many guys who say "hey, I'd like to try a WWI model" end up building a BUSA eindecker, which IMHO is little more than a gussied-up ugly stik. I built my Puppeteer in six weeks so it's perfectly possible to build a sport-scale biplane in a reasonable amount of time.

I don't really have any problem with ARFs in that I don't see them as existing in the same "ecological niche" as scale models. That is, the guy who's going to buy an ARF isn't going to buy one INSTEAD of building a model. Either he has no intention of ever building (which is about 90% of all flyers now) or they're buying ARFs IN ADDITION to their building, which I think is fine.

Mein Duff

Guess we have "the right stuff" to enjoy building those endless wings of ours....the rewards in my opinion greatly justified knowing you've built a quality wing that will with stand some bashing and the test of time...
I enjoy your Pup Pics...they are a great little planes, and like you said, coordinating turns and scale aerobatics in them is so much fun and relaxing...my favorites are realistic stall turns and symmetrical loops... What engine are you using ?

Attached a few pics of mine which I've had for about 10 yrs..never had accident..knock on wood..I baby this thing..the new scale size Dubro wheels make this so much easier to handle on tour dog patch runway...
engine OS 70...the perfect match

abufletcher

The Flair "Pup" is a great little "kick around" model, as is the BUSA version. I see you've added lots of nice "extras" to your. I never imagined that I'd still be flying my Pup two years later...let alone ten! But now that I've got to know her ins and outs I feel like the model just might last a few more flying seasons. And if it doesn't, well, there will always be a next biplane. In fact, I'm already planning on doing the DB 1/5 scale Pup which is based closely on the Kiger Replicraft plans. It may not be quite the same standard as the Mick Reeves Pup (which also takes some liberties) but it's a nice size and looks like it'll make a great model and a great flyer. Oh, and I've just got a Saito 56 in mine so (at 4.2kg) it's "nicely underpowered."

Building a basic wing is probably one of the fastest building tasks there is. In most cases, you can have a simple wing done in an evening or two. Doing the practical stuff and adding some detail might take a few more days. But really if a builder can't manage two wings, he might as well stick with ARFs!

Mein Duff

Not really familiar with the DB pup version, will have to check it out....
I just got my set of Replicraft Roland D.VI plans from Jim Kiger last week..they are amazingly detailed, even has a full size wing profile as well as complete 5 sheet, 1/5 scale set of plans along with a complete 1/15 set....virtually every metal fitting is drawn to scale as well.
I have been wanting to build the Roland in 1/4 scale (maybe even 1/3) so need to enlarge the plans, but will have to wait until I get my SE5 finally finished....starting to calculate my life in how many models I can build before I hang up my goggles....like some people count how many dogs they'l have.....so many planes to build[sm=bananahead.gif

Just got the Hans Brandenburg D.1 DF...now that is really of the wall but very appealing and almost never modeled..

You're right about the ARF'ers....it's probably not a choice thing anyway, and two wings really is just too much guess ..but I just can't get excited about something you don't build but bought of the shelf....again, different strokes for different folks....reminds me of "Zen and the Art if Motorcycle Maintenance" by Robert Pirsig...some people hear only hear the humming engine others see only the superficial outside body...some put it all together...what is "quality" anyway, you can't describe you can it only feel it.....two wings for me it is

abufletcher

Sounds like we're on the same page (and probably of a similar age since you mentioned the Zen of Motorcycle Maintenance). I like flying ARFs, but don't care at all how they look, in fact my Kyosho 109 is starting to look like the Flying Dutchman! I really couldn't be bothered to try to fix it up, beyond what's necessary to keep it flying one more day. Similarly, I just couldn't make myself spend a moment of my building time making a fun-fly. And I'm probably finished with building "fun scale" models too. If I get really desperate I suppose I might someday "whack together" another of the Flair kits or maybe someday BUSA will kit something that attracts my attention. I'd just rather put my energies into build the best quality scale models I can. And if that means flying ARFs on the weekend in the meantime, that's fine.

It's good to see Replicraft branching out into the Axis aircraft. But, you know, there's sort of a fundamental problem that we WWI builders have and that's if there's enough information to build a really top-notch model, then a hundred builders have already built one. It's the types that are poorly documented that are often the most appealing. For me, my next grand project will be a 1/6 scale Fe2b. But I'm not sure I have the skills at the moment. Scratch building the DrI (as authentically as I can with the materials available) is practice. And I'm learning alot from the CI also. Maybe when those are finished I'll be ready to tackle the Fe2b.

abufletcher

So here it is with the edge strips applied, the hundreds of "nails" drawn on with a Sharpie, two further coats of PU, and the metal decking pieces on. It's hard to see the effect of the strips or the nails in the photo but believe me, it really adds a lot of depth to the fuselage.

Mein Duff

You can see the edge tapes pretty well...the nails less so...nice to see it all coming together.....just need a few sturdy Norsemen to push it out to sea!

abufletcher

Yeah, I know what you mean! I'm tempted to put a Norse dragon head on the "bow." Shields on the sides would look pretty cool too! [8D] This "dots" for the nails are only visible close-up and that's probably as it should be. From normal viewing distances all they do is give the impression of texture. If I had had hundreds of little nails available. I would have used them. Anyone know a source for "nails" with a head about 1/64 of an inch? I considered (and tested) using pins but the silver heads stand out like rivets and looks totally wrong on this natural wood fuse. But it might work if I were using one of the all blue or grey schemes.

Mein Duff

I got bunches of said 1/64 copper nails through a model shop in Switz. that specialized in ship models...any ship building clubs in japan?
Try: www.aero-naut.de...unfortunately you can only order their catalog...they have virtually all you need in ship building accessories...tiny turnbuckles, pulleys, etc.
Your nails look great "as is" though...

Mein Duff

Oy laddies..check out this awesome website..under accessories somewhere....every bit of hardware you could imagine
www.naturecoast.com

abufletcher

That's great! But what I want to know if this: Why is it that model boat supply companies supply every imaginable teeny-tiny part from 1/4" tall wooden buckets to brass cabin lanterns, but scale air-modelers can't get a decent 1/6 scale shackle, (really) scale turnbuckle, or any of the other things we use on almost every model? What are we, chopped liver? I mean, can you imagine if the boat builders and RR-modelers had to scour Proctor or DuBro for parts?

abufletcher

I suppose I needed something like this:

http://www.micromark.com/MINI-NAILS-...-100,6561.html

But even the brass I'd need to darken first. AH! But the head would be too large. The 0.02" diameter (0.5mm) is the diameter of the NAIL not the head.

abufletcher

I think the next thing is to get some legs on this and then do the cabane pylon.

abufletcher

But first a photo with the wings and tail feathers just to remind me that this IS an airplane! And then a shot of the screws on the decking parts. The "protective strip" has 7 screws on the outer curve and 5 on the inner as per the photos of the Cracow CI. Thanks Trev! The placement of the other screws is partly supported by photos and partly creative license.

According to the artwork on the cover of the CI DF, the ply decking under this protective strip would have been painted the same color as the other metal parts, a light grey.

Mein Duff

That Micromark site does have some great stuff though...
Oh ya, forgot you were building an aircraft..I was waiting for the sail and rigging to be next..and maybe a few paddles
Damn, does that fuse look fabulous all together..oops ....I'm drooling...

abufletcher

IMHO, WWI modeling is all about the fuselage. That's where the bulk of the detail is to be found and where most of the time will be spent. And on these 2-seaters this is doubly true. While a sports scale DVII, Pup, or Nieuport might have a certain appeal, I just don't see the point of a sport scale 2-seater. In some respects, the 2-seaters were just plain "ugly" or just plain "plain." It's ONLY the details that make them interesting at all. That is, it's their inherent "funkiness" that makes them worth modeling.