abufletcher

No to worry, I'm saying the things I say, half (but just half) in jest anyway. I'd definitely prefer my models to fly at least as well as the original. I guess I see this discussion as being mostly about "philosophy" anyway. My philosophical outlook on WWI aircraft is that there were easy to fly and those which were difficult to fly. Newcomers to WWI flying should just pick an "easy flying original." So for example, the Pup and the SE5a were considered to be relatively easy to fly and I think scale outline models should also be easy to fly (as long as they don't get weighed down with detailing). The problem is that many people want a DrI to fly like a Pup.

BobH

My Feedback: (2)

In my experience Scale WWI planes require rudder to initiate turns. Ailerons will just put you in a roll attitude. There is definately a learning curve when flying planes with undercamber etc. The Scale planes have the thin wings (if so on the original) etc.
The BIGGEST departure I can see from BUSA kits is the wing thickness, very thick wings. This adds to lift quite a bit as the wing volume is increased substantially. It also makes them fly like sport planes.

abufletcher

I think this depends greatly on the individual aircraft and on the individual model. On some models that might be true and on others not at all. My Snipe turned easily with ailerons and just a little rudder (and it really only has a little rudder), while another modeler modeling at a different scale had lots of problems getting his Snipe to turn without lots of rudder. The problem stems from so-called adverse yaw, where the drag on the ailerons can somewhat counteract the desired rotation. The degree of adverse yaw can be affected by such things as the size of the ailerons, the degree of deflection, and whether the aileron is hinges on the top, middle, or bottom. Using differential generally helps avoid adverse yaw. But really is it so hard to add a little rudder in a turn. I mean all you have to do is move your thumbs together in the same direction. And you don't need computer mixing to do that.

Anyway, I'm always glad to see a biplane of any sort but I would like to see a few more with real scale outlines.

John Cole

My Feedback: (4)

Anyway, I'm always glad to see a biplane of any sort but I would like to see a few more with real scale outlines.

[/quote]

Once I paint the gun and upgrade the pilot, I should be ready for the Nationals...

John

abufletcher

I had the WHOLE series! But, jeeze louise, can't you tell that that's a LEWIS gun on that German plane! How unscale can you get!

CKLLOYD

WW1 PROCTOR KITS ARE SOME OF THE BEST OUT HERE ALL THERE PARTS ARE HAND MADE. AS FOR THE MOTOR MOKI 250 OR THE 400 THERE IS JUST NO OTHER SOUND LIKE THEM AND THEY SOUND LIKE THE REAL THING AND THE RUN GREAT..

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

I am wondering though about the Proctor kits, do they build heavy? I have heard of the Fokker DVII being around 35 lbs. Mine is 19 and I could not imagine one being 35. I think it would fly like crap. I may be completely wrong, but I do like my planes to be lighter if possible.

abufletcher

It's not that I particularly want my WWI models to be "light" or "heavy." It's that I want them to fly as much as possible like the originals. Many WWI aircraft had somewhat minimal power but were also fairly light. Others had more in the power department and were also a bit more heavily constructed. But it certainly wouldn't be fun trying to fly a WWI model with a wing loading like a WWII heavy metal warbird! I'd also be interested to hear from those who've build Proctor models as to whether you think they build heavier due to all the authentic construction (rather than extensive detailing).

But I'd like to point out that the "common wisdom" than using scale construction leads to overly heavy models may be an "old wives' tale" instead. My bamboo frame 1/6 scale DrI fuse with functional rigging is the lightest structure I've ever build and I'd put its strength up against any traditional model structure.

abufletcher

Some facts about a 1/4 scale Pup:

1. It's only got a wingspan of 77" which is shorter than my 1/6 scale CI!

2. That's only a foot or so longer than my 1/6 scale Snipe!

3. A 1/5 scale Pup is about the same size as my Flair Puppeteer.

4. The Seidel 770 would be too much engine for a 1/4 scale Pup (which should fly well on a G23 or G26 and the Seidel is more like a G62)

So I can see why people might "skip" the quarter sized Pup and move on up to 1/3 scale. Still, the 1/4 scale would be a nice cozy size. But then if the point is to go "bigger" then I need to really find a bigger aircraft to model.

Frank Sopwith

Finally!
You figured it out yourself!

told you, did I ?

Frank

abufletcher

Sure seems logical in the case of the Pup. But maybe what I want is a 1/4 scale 1 1/2 Strutter! Perhaps the moral of all this brain-wracking is that I just need to stop thinking in terms of "scale" and instead think in terms of the model size that I'm interested in building (and flying). I know I want to start building bigger models. For example, the 1/6 scale FE2b that I've been collecting resources (and building skills) for would have a wingspan of 95" stand two feet tall and be over 5 feet in length. That's PLENTY big enough for me!

Anyway, for the next year at the very least, I've got some serious 1/6 scale projects to finish up!

geezeraviation

My Feedback: (3)

According to thier website a Proctor D VII recomended flying weight is 23 lbs, the D V Alby is 20 lbs and the N 28 is 16.5 lbs. I would think if someone had one come out over 30 lbs that they did something superbly wrong or painted with lead. None of those airplanes would be any fun to fly at much more than the recomended weight, and I'm sure wouldnt fly at all over 30lbs.
Doc

semeraro

I have a few more details to add to my 1/4 Albatros. The next 1/4 scale model will be a Nieuport 17. I am starting with the BUSA kit but changing some stuff. Like the rudder size and shape, the airfoil thickness, the wing tips, the firewall position, the landing gear,... well maybe I will start from scratch instead.

Dave S.

abufletcher

That's what happened on my one and only BUSA build ("eindecker"). Really if you're going to change all that it's better to just start at some other point. There are lots of good drawings of the Nieuport 17...ones that are actually scale.

geezeraviation

My Feedback: (3)

Or you could build it the way BUSA designed it, maybe improve the gear, the rest really looks OK.
What it really boils down to is what do you want? The guys and spectators at the field dont know it's not scale and dont care, it looks good.
So what it is it that YOU want. Easy to build and fly, BUSA is for you. Are you going to compete? Either scratch it or start with something from Mick Reeves, Proctor, or Glen Torrance. Not going to compete but it just has to be perfect, then get drawings and develop your own design, follow scale as well as can (some things just DONT scale down well) and scratch your masterpiece, if that's what it takes to make YOU a happy camper.
That's what I have seen in this thread, the things that make each individuals post personalized is his own level of acceptance.
Don you started off asking about 1/4 scale kits. You know what's out there and which ones are likely to suit what you want as far as fidelity is concerned but the choices af aircraft are limited, some Fokkers and Sopwiths with an Alby or two. If you want to show up at the field with something less often seen then your choice is simple, it has to be developed by you at whatever scale the size dictates you to build it at. Despite your limited ammount of experience you are a really talented builder and I keep an eye on your threads so I can (despite my 55 years of building experience) learn from what I see.
This thread is an interesting trip into what the readers and builders feel about the state of the WWI kit offerings and what works for them.
Doc

jtisch

What eventually turned me off of the BUSA N.17 was that the cowl diameter is 9.5". Scale diameter should be between 10-1/4" and 10-1/2", depending on which drawings you go by. My 4-stroke gassers will fit completely in a scale size cowl but not in a 9-1/2" one, so I am making my own plans for a N.27 and sold my BUSA N.17 kit. One other thing (besides those already mentioned) is that the BUSA N.17 has a square fuselage while it should be a trapezoid shape for the cross section.
It seems that the 9-1/2" cowl is used for all the BUSA planes with rotary engines(1/4 scale, of course) .
It may sound like I'm knocking BUSA a bit but I do purchase many of their products and am a happy customer. It's just that their kits aren't scale enough FOR ME.

J

vertical grimmace

My Feedback: (1)

Competition does not care about the "interior " of the framework. The outline and the colors are what matter and that just has to match what you submit. The other half is flying. The other flying half is the most difficult for me. It does come down to what you want, and competition may not have anything to do with that. I know Abu's position on this. He wants scale structure and interior.

abufletcher

Well, not exactly. My opinion is that with many/most WWI models what's on the inside WILL SHOW on the outside...and it's important to me that everything that I can see "on the outside" be scale. So, for example, rib count and the number and length of partial riblet DO show on the outside, so they need to be correct. And the trapezoidal cross-section of the Nieuport 11/17 certainly shows on the outside...at least to a critical eye. And if the aircraft being modeled had a semi-transparent covering that would allow internal structure to be seen then...yes...that too would need to be scale. This would all fall under my definition of "scale outline."

If you're building a WWII bird that will be fully sheeted, glassed, and primed...then sure, who cares about what's inside. But with WWI stuff what' on the inside IS on the outside most of the time.

And sometimes, scale structure is just plain superior to traditional model structure.

abufletcher

OK, so here's a round-up of engine types for 1/4 scale (WWI) and comparative costs:

120-180 single cylinder 4-strokes (e.g. Laser, Saito), good for inline or round cowls

Cost: Around $450-550

200 Twin 4-stroke, really only suitable for round cowls

Cost: Around $850

Gassers in the 23-40 range (Zenoah, DLE, Fuji), really only suitable for round cowls (and carb may protrude)

Cost: Around $325

Seidel 7-35 and 7-70 radial, only suitable for round cowls

Cost: Around $1,000

Other radials (Saito, Moki, Robart, Technopower, etc.)

Cost: If you have to ask...

Clearly gas is the most economical option. But then if you want to swing a scale prop you'll need a gear drive costing a couple hundred more. The Laser 200 twin is certainly a beauty but costs almost as much as a Seidel 770. I suppose it boils down to whether one would prefer a working radial or a more scale dummy engine covering the real (but non-scale) engine. The single cylinder 4-strokes may be the most flexible in terms of being able to power either a round cowl or inline type model.

Steve Percifield

My Feedback: (14)

Don,

Most of the modern gassers today have rear carbs. you can get wrap around mufflers, so nothing sticks out of the cowl.

semeraro

I cant resist posting one more time. I think BUSA has a great line of sport scale kits. I have met the guys from BUSA at various flyins and contests. They are great people and offer great service. Their airplanes can be built for competition. Witness Dave Johnsons DVII in 1/3 scale. I am not that prolific a builder and I want the models I build to be competitive. So when I think about building a model I have to consider the effort it will take to make it that way. To me the N17 in 1/4 would take more work to make into a contest model than it would to draw up some plans of my own. No offense to BUSA and their supporters. I just dont have time to build many sport models. I have plans and parts for Brian Taylors Spitfire MK1 and his BF-109e. Both are spot on in scale outline but they are too small to compete with so... I may never get around to building them. I just cant help myself. It is the way I think. So, for me scale outline is important that is why I am considering not building the BUSA kit and rolling my own.

I also think 1/4 scale is going to be good for me for a while. If I cant compete with the 1/3 scale fighters with a 1/4 scale airplane I will choose a larger model to build in 1/4. Maybe a rumpler or albatros two seater that works out to be 10 ft span.

Don, you do great work. I am sure what ever model you choose to build will come out great. I look forward to following along on your 1/4 scale thread.

Dave S.

abufletcher

Don't the Zenoahs still have side-mounted carbs?

http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products...odID=ZENE26AEI

BTW, the DLE 30 looks like a sweet engine at a very nice price. Anyone have one in a 1/4 scale model?

http://www.towerhobbies.com/products.../dleg0031.html

One of the things I like about the Saito gas engines is that they maintain the same basic configuration of the 4-stroke meaning they'd be good for either round cowls or inline.

http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products...ProdID=SAIEG30

geezeraviation

My Feedback: (3)

Yes Zenoahs have side mounted carbs but in a 1/4 round cowl application they do not protrude, in inline applications, Se 5a, DH 4, Fok D VII, Spad, etc a rear carb is desireable to prevent the "hole in the side" syndrome. I too like the Saitos but thier price tag puts me off a bit. There are so many small gassers out there right now that are ideal for 1/4 scale and the Chinese have made them cheaper than they were ten years ago or longer. I have a DL 50 that runs great and has enormous power for its size and it was less than $300.
Doc

abufletcher

In the end, the best reason to have a Seidel is because you want to have a Seidel. It was pretty much the same thing with buying a Leica. There's really no reason anyone NEEDS a Leica and rational reason anyone NEEDS a Seidel. Both are cool. I currently have a Leica that I almost never use. Should I trade it for a Seidel I will almost never use?

eagledancer

the albi i built and detailed ended up at 22 lbs with a moki 2.10 and flew fantastic!