Teus

I believe Fokker did indeed some tests with the E.III and added a second wing. I saw some photos of it somewhere.

Not certain about this but almost...............

abufletcher

Isn't that essentially a DII?

Lucky Dog

My Feedback: (1)

Not only a second wing but a second fuse, with a tandem engine set-up. Gunner and/or observers would have sat in the nose of the fuselages. I've seen a photo as well but unsure as to where. There was only one built I believe. Really different. I keep coming back to this a something I'd like build too.

abufletcher

When I do a Tripe, it'll be a full on, obsessive, abufletcher build. Now that I've seen the Kiger plans, I couldn't stand to do otherwise. But the Pup and the EIII are "just" model plans so I might be able to control myself.

ARUP

The Mike Booth 1/4 Tripehound plans are nice, too!

abufletcher

More and more I've finding I prefer building from technical drawings rather than plans.

Nieuport nut

My Feedback: (10)

Well, if you are looking to build a miniature replica, technical drawings are the plans!

Martin

abufletcher

Doesn't everyone? Seriously, it's the only way I feel I can be certain that the "outlines" haven't been messed with. And by "outlines" I mean ANY internal structures which will be visible, under any circumstances, on the outside. I don't mind making compromises. But at least they'll be MY compromises.

ZoomZoom-RCU

I have to agree with you Abu. There's nothing like the original drawings. Speaking of which, don't know if it'll help you guys but it helped me a-lot. I found away to scale those 3 views, and then print them out from a standard printer at whatever scale you need. Saves a heap o money at the printers, thats for sure. What you do is use google sketch up. Import your 3 view. Scale it to whatever size you want (sketchup has an internal ruler so oyu can be very precise). Then use a free program called cute pdf to print out the tiled plans. Tape em together and voila...there they are and at whatever scale you need. Pretty cool.

ZZ.

abufletcher

Good tip, ZZ. I've often wondered how picky scale builders go about checking the accuracy of the plans they buy. To me ALL plans are suspect. My favorite technique has been to overlay a digital image of the best 3-views I can find over a digital version of the plan views. It's often shocking the discrepancies that you find.

How do you guys check plans? Do you just eyeball it?

ZoomZoom-RCU

Well, I try and double check the 3-views (if downloaded online) with whatever documentation articles I have. Or better yet, scan them in yourself from the data-file. Thats usually pretty accurate.

ZZ.

Ps, you are right though, if they are someone elses plans, you never know what they may have taken liberties with.

geezeraviation

My Feedback: (3)

One of the things about a lot WWI A.C. is that there are a lot of straight lines to work with. So with the aid of a Datafile and some basic measurements of moments, chords, and heigths in a few places not too many are hard to verify or disprove, whichever the case.
Doc

abufletcher

That would work for a lot of the obvious stuff, however, I've seen all kinds of other "smaller" discrepancies such as the slope on the edges of the flight surfaces, or the length and/or angle of the UC, the length of the wing/cabane struts and even the slope of the bottom of the fuselage. These are minor things but they can add up fast into a model that just doesn't look right.

I do accept that there is really no such thing as "perfect original drawings." But as someone who doesn't compete (and as an "aviation amateur") I'm entirely unsatisfied by the "build to your documentation" approach. I want to build to the best historical evidence I can find, even if that evidence comes from many sources.

And I really have learned to question EVERY set of plans, from Proctor on down.

mmiller1

My Feedback: (75)

I am interested in building the SR Batteries Eindecker 100". From what I have read, and discussed with others it appears to be a great intro to WWI aviation. I once built the Eindecker 40 from busa. It flew just fine. Later traded it. Now I want to try 1/4 scale. There total package is a bit $$ but life is short. I love to build and need a winter project. Any feedback from this thread would be appreciated.
Tim from Tacoma

abufletcher

From everything I've heard it's a really fine kit and a joy to build (and fly). BUT. And for me this is a HUGE BUT, one should be aware that it's non-scale in quite a few ways. In fact, it's really not much more than an upscale version of the BUSA 90" eindecker kit. And it has many of the scale faults of the BUSA eindeckers. It has an oversized rudder, the oversized elevator with stabilizer vs. the full-flying elevator of the original.

In short, it's strictly stand-off scale.

abufletcher

I guess for me the only real reason I would want to move up to 1/4 scale (or larger) would be to build an even MORE SCALE model. I don't just want a LARGER model.

WacoNut

Hi Abu,
In the future I have planned a 33% Curtis Jenny J4ND. I have the Proctor plans blown up which are very close to exact scale with a few minor changes. I also have copies of the factory drawings for all the metal fittings used to bolt the plane together. All of the original drawings are being put into CAD to reproduce all the fittings in 1/3 scale. The front of the fuse of the Proctor Jenny has been modified to be more modeler friendly (engine bearers and top longeron) and I can easily convert this back to scale. All I need to do is ponder what power plant to run and how much spruce this thing is going to consume. Also I need to finish the 2-3 other projects in front of this one.
BTW: The span will be 174.5", I like BIG planes
Later!!
Anthony