abufletcher

Frank, next you'll have me wanting a 1/3 scale FE2b with a 16 ft (4.9m) wingspan! And then I can buy a bus to haul it around in! BTW, regarding relative engine costs, I see the Seidel 7-70 (which should do for a 1/4 scale model) is around 1000 Euros, while the next size up, the 9-90 is almost 1500 Euros. So that's a significant difference.

But man of man I really enjoyed seeing your 1/3 scale Pup! And that 1/3 scale Camel looked big enough to climb onto and take off!

Steve Percifield

My Feedback: (14)

http://www.dbsportandscale.com/

Don, here is a manufacture with several kits, apparently in Europe.

steve

abufletcher

Yes, how could I have forgotten DB ("Dave Boddington") Sport and Scale! They do indeed offer several very nice 1/4 scale kits including an SE5 and a Pup (doesn't EVERYONE offer a Pup)!

http://www.dbsportandscale.com/Model...aft%20Kits.htm

http://www.dbsportandscale.com/se5.htm

Mein Duff

Don, welcome back from your trip.
Another great accurate kit is Duncan Hutson's 1/4.2 ( almost quarter scale) kit sold through Proctor ....The cowling area is fiberglass though...real scale would be all aluminum naturally.
I also have Duncan's excellent 1/4 scale Hanriot kit (NIB) stopped production in 2004, that I would be willing to part with if anybody is interested.
1/4 scale is manageable size wise for most station wagons etc. ..but 1/3 scale gets exponentially more difficult...needing vans and then storage issues to deal with.

The DB Models SE5 is "fun scale" with many inaccuracies...including too wide fuse and too few wing ribs etc. buyer beware !

BobH

My Feedback: (2)

Duncan does not makes kits any longer. It's been several years since he stopped production due to health issues dealing with the fiber glass parts. I built his SE5a and its very scale in most respects. One issue I have is his wing mounting methods. I prefer the full scale practice of brackets to hold on the wings in stead of the metal rods. What happens is that you get an irregular joing at the wing/fuse.

I like the Hanriot. I wonder if it's construction technique is the same as the SE5a.

Tx_RcFlyer

My Feedback: (7)

Last night I picked up a DR1 kit with 73" wingspan made by Flair.  Traded it for a $100 ARF..   I haven't gone thru everything but it looks to be a nice kit with a beautiful spun auminum cowl.

Mein Duff

I wonder if Joe at Proctor bought up all Duncan's remaining kits back then? He lists them as still for sale on his website.
Not sure what you mean by "irregular" wing joints on his SE5 with metal rods, as long as they work well and are invisible below scale brackets and it looks right....who's to know?

Mein Duff

Regarding Flair kits...again these are designed usually for maximum stability for the average flier and should be regarded as "Fun Flyers- Semi Scale". Their Sopwith Pup for example is an excellent flying machine but even the fuse and wings are different scale from the original full size... the landing gear is much wider and lower than need be.
Not sure how their DRI measure up, but I would expect the same inaccuracies as well....

I assume we are talking about accurate 1/4 scale kits on this thread.

abufletcher

Well, really, ANY 1/4 scale WWI kit would be of interest. I can imagine doing a "less than scale" 1/4 scale "kick around" scale model, during the time I'm building a serious one. And the price of the BUSA 1/4 scale kits (at about $250) certainly makes them appealing for this purpose. Unfortunately, I doubt there are more than a dozen (or even a half dozen) truly scale 1/4 scale kits out there.

I'm sort of amazed that there aren't more completely accurate 1/4 scale kits. I mean who really needs to alter a 1/4 scale Pup to make it "fly better" or even to make it "easier to build?"

BobH

My Feedback: (2)

What happens is that the wings tend to separate at the trailing edge causing a gap. This is caused by the flying wires pulling the wings forward. You can elimenate it somewhat by putting a lot of tension on the landing wires. But it's not the best solution.

abufletcher

Same thing happened with my Snipe (which also used the metal rods) and if I would to build it again, I'd include some sort of bracket so that the riggings didn't have to do double duty.

eagledancer

abu knowing how you build i would suggest a proctor kit, they all fly wonderfully. take a bit of building but they make into the type airplane you love to build. and dont forget the nieuport 28! you skipped that one in your first post on this thread. or the EIII
i am currently building a second albi and loved how the first one flew until its demise. (i think a snipe came in out of the sun)
the EIII is a interesting build, ended up selling it before i got to fly it (divorce) but that is on my list to build again. i do have a n28 under the bench that is on the short list to build
but also you need to concider transport! the albi wings do come off but not real easy!! best way to trans the EIII breaks down quite fast

abufletcher

No doubt about the quality of the Proctor kits. But I've always been a bit put off by the "me-too" aspect of doing one of the Proctor kits. Maybe that's because they ARE so good. You pretty much just built them the way they are supposed to be built (if you have the skills) and you end up with pretty much the same model as every other person who has ever built one. I suppose the same can be said of the Mick Reeves and GTM kits. Maybe it's the nature of kits. I might end up blowing up a smaller design of a less modeled type and having some parts cuts. A 1/4 scale Caulderon would be interesting!


Must have been my unconscious prejudices slipping through. I have to say that I personally just hate the appearance of the N28. I don't know what it is about it.

Certainly I'd have to accept that the model would need to be assembled at the field instead of the way I've been transporting my smaller models in one piece. But then Frank "Sopwith" manages to move his 1/3 scale Pup around in a fairly normal station wagon type car. I've got a van that seems to have even more space (and a spare bedroom to use as a hanger).

abufletcher

BTW, I don't know whether this is quarter scale or not (it could be be I suppose) but this is the sort of unusual model that we really should see more of!

foodstick

Here is my buddies HIGHLY MODIFIED flair DR1..he changed a lot..so its not built to plans by any means..

John Cole

My Feedback: (4)

Don, Ooo.. I LIKE that Fokker Spider!! Joe Topper has built a beauty also..

Thought you would be interested to know I've started to build my DH-1a design again, this time in qtr scale. Should be a hoot!!

Take care,

John

ps Peter Barth used to have a splendid Spad XIII kit, but it may be history now..

abufletcher

John, that's great to hear. Your DH-1a design is really fantastic and it really deserves to be built again...and at 1/4 scale it's going to be AWESOME! I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the size of the 1/6 scale FE2b. [sm=spinnyeyes.gif]

John Cole

My Feedback: (4)

Very true, the WW1 two seaters have lots of volume. The project is going well, man this thing is using lots of lumber. The jump in scale, by whole numbers, has a big impact on a modeler. It's a gentle performer, so I'm expecting no surprises (except for all the WOOD I'M CARVING UP!!)

John

abufletcher

Japan's Rajicon Gijutsu magazine seems to know exactly what I'm thinking. This month's issue has a long overview of multi-cylinder engines along with a profile of the Seidel 7-70 radial!

So what's single cylinder 4-stroke power equivalent of the Seidel 7-70 (3kw or 4 HP) and/or the new 9-90 (listed as 4kw or 5.4 HP)? And how do these radials compare in power with the Saito FA-200R3?

http://www.seidel-triebwerke.de/englisch/englisch.html

abufletcher

Sweet!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMdtz...eature=related

Nieuport nut

My Feedback: (10)

Don, other than "The Big Three" mentioned earlier, I don't think there are any accurate 1/4 scale kits. Really, the thing to do would be to go the plans route. While they vary, there are a number of accurate ones, and with a long project like this, cutting a few bulkheads, (and perhaps having the ribs laser cut), is pretty small potatoes. We have seen what a scale fanatic you are, so my suspicion is that you wouldn't be happy with any kit other than the aforementioned trio. Plans are also the best way to get something that isn't a "me too" model.

Martin

geezeraviation

My Feedback: (3)

Go for it Don, bigger is better. Gas is cleaner (much) than glow and most 1/4 size will do well with a G23 or an old Q42. I like magneto engines better than electronic ignition, less to fuss with but an extra battery pack sometimes needed, less church roof required. I fly a 1/4 N28 BUSA a 1/4 SE 5a BUSA am about to finish a 1/3 N 28 BUSA very heavily bashed (most of the parts are still in the box) and have a Glen Torrance Hanriot HD 1 sitting on the shelf that's next, I like to think of it as serious scale, no mods required to make it right because it already is. Plan well and then do it.
Doc

abufletcher

Thanks to everyone who has contributed so far! Lots of good information! Here's where I am right now in my thinking:

1. 1/4 scale models of single-seaters ("fighters") are pretty manageable with 80-90" wingspans. In most cases, the wings could be transported as four panels (except for one piece wings as on the DVII).

2. 1/4 scale models of the 2-seaters are a much larger undertaking (in the 120" or larger span range). But even this is possible as long as individual wing panels are only about 60" each. I wouldn't need a moving van to get it to the field!

3. Removable wing panels means assembling the model at the field. So some thought needs to be given to making this as painless and quick as possible. But this seems doable.

4. There's really no point in doing a "sport scale" 1/4 scale model! Really. It should at least be 100% accurate in terms of 3-view outlines. And really even the structure should largely parallel the original (in terms of fuse longerons and uprights, wing ribs, elevator/rudder structure, undercarriage, etc.). One could argue for using a (slightly) non-scale airfoil (though a scale airfoil would work just fine), but any messing around with other proportions seems unnecessary...and in my way of thinking VERBOTEN!

5. The power options seem to be either the G23-26 size gas engines (for the fighters), a biggish 120 or so size 4-stroke (maybe a 90 for the smaller, lighter fighter models), or one of the pretty (and pretty expensive) radials. The gas engines are probably the most economical choice, though only good for the "round cowl" types.

6. I'm probably be more satisfied building from plans than from a (full) kit. Kit have to be designed with "ease of production" in mind. And that often leads to compromises that an individual modelers doesn't need to make. That is, it doesn't matter to the individual modeler whether or no some modeling solution is a hassle and/or costly to mass produce. And ultimately the only way to avoid a "me too" model is probably to build a model (even a commonly modeled aircraft) in your own way.

7. Laser cutting is STILL your friend!

geezeraviation

My Feedback: (3)

All good points and logical thinking. Knowing you're particular to accuracy of outline Id suggest checking on replicraft drawings to see what's there that you would be interested in. Thier drawings are to 1/5 scale and would have to be redrawn. More my way inclined that a set of drawings designed for a model.
A real challenging approach to creating replica, rather than just a model. I have had one in mind for some time and may attempt in the future.
Doc

abufletcher

What I'm saying is that at 1/4 scale there just isn't any need to change the aerodynamics of the original design (a.k.a. "the outline") in the model. No need to have a wing with a wider cord...or a non-scale gap between the wings...or a bigger elevator/rudder...or a longer nose...or shorter gear...or any of those things. Unless, of course, what you want is really a "fun fly" that looks like a scale model, instead of a scale model that flies like a scale model.

I look at the mods made on most "sport scale" models and ask myself "why on earth was that particular non-scale shape used." And as often as not, I think the answer is: "Because the designers didn't actually research the original enough to KNOW what's wrong with the shape." That is, the outlines are wrong ("inaccurate") not because of purposeful design re-engineering (which I can respect) but rather out of ignorance. Sometimes I think it results from a philosophical outlook that goes something like this: "These things we build ARE models. Just models. They aren't SUPPOSED to be accurate. They're just MODELS! And it's all about fun and who even cares how the original was." In other word: "Models should look like models first, and some specific aircraft only second."

By the way, choosing to keep the "outline" (a.k.a. "the aerodynamics") the same doesn't necessarily mean you have to go to the level of "miniature replica" building. Often what's on the inside of a WWI model does end up showing on the outside (in which case, that's a problem) but I have no problem making "invisible changes" to the structure for the sake convenience.