Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
August 19, 2018, 04:19:49 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with email, password and session length
 
Home Help Search Login Register
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: DPC Models Kit Scale Pfalz D.III  (Read 2778 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
abl
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 8
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 206


Topic starter
Andy Blackburn



Ignore
« Reply #25 on: February 01, 2018, 10:59:16 AM »

I seem to spend all my time on recent kit scale models finding new and more difficult ways to make spinners...  Smiley

I'm going to use a 6" Peck prop with a 3/64" prop shaft because when it flies into the wall there's a better chance that it'll survive the encounter unscathed, so the spinner has to fit around that set-up, but it's not very big (tiny, in fact) so there's no chance of hiding anything inside it. After a bit of playing around with the various parts I realized that the Peck prop hub is about 3/16" diameter, so maybe two halves of a spinner could be turned on a 3/16" dowel and the prop fitted in afterwards?

As it turned out, this has worked quite well (see photos) although there's a little bit of distortion on the ply spinner base because it's only 1/32" (I loathe cutting ply!) - should really have been 1/16". The only thing I need to worry about now (famous last words) is whether I can bend and cut the wire for the freewheel so that it projects less than about 2mm.
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: DPC Models Kit Scale Pfalz D.III
Re: DPC Models Kit Scale Pfalz D.III
Re: DPC Models Kit Scale Pfalz D.III
Re: DPC Models Kit Scale Pfalz D.III
Re: DPC Models Kit Scale Pfalz D.III
Re: DPC Models Kit Scale Pfalz D.III
Logged
Jack Plane
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 23
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 960




Ignore
« Reply #26 on: February 01, 2018, 03:48:58 PM »


I seem to spend all my time on recent kit scale models finding new and more difficult ways to make spinners...  Smiley


Perhaps a shining new career briefing politicians...?  Grin
Logged
skyraider
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 88
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1,244

WWW

Ignore
« Reply #27 on: February 01, 2018, 05:37:09 PM »

Abl,
  Looking good!

Skyraider
Logged
abl
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 8
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 206


Topic starter
Andy Blackburn



Ignore
« Reply #28 on: May 15, 2018, 04:26:36 PM »

I admit to packing all the bits away in the loft when it became apparent that the Pfalz wasn't going to be finished for the Indoor Scale Nats, which is one of the reasons why nothing has happened on this build for a while.

So in the meantime I've been looking at scale drawings and comparing them to the plan, and have been thinking carefully about whether it really needs that much dihedral if it's going to be flown mainly indoors, and only flown outdoors on calm days; it's pretty obvious that the full-size hasn't got much dihedral at all.

On balance, I'm minded to reduce the dihedral on the top wing by between 1/8" and 3/16", and reduce the bottom wing dihedral by a similar amount so that the interplane struts don't have to be changed. In the mad world of Kit Scale static judging this might well incur some of those accursed penalty points and I haven't thought up a good excuse for it yet; the best I can come up with is that whilst a points deduction for increased dihedral is mentioned in the rules, there's no mention of deductions for reduced dihedral...
Logged
Graham Banham
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 18
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 574




Ignore
« Reply #29 on: May 15, 2018, 05:01:25 PM »

Alternatively, reduce the dihedral (and make any other changes you feel appropriate) find a three view, cover/ paint it according to a colour profile, add three photos of the aircraft, one of which being the aircraft you modelled, and enter open rubber with it instead?

The open classes really are as simple as that. No excuse then to subject yourself to the ‘mad world of kit scale judging’. Any model that flies well enough to do 15 secs plus in a reasonable manner is off to a flying start, no pun intended.
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 82
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,239




Ignore
« Reply #30 on: May 15, 2018, 05:35:32 PM »

 Or enter it in both, thereby getting 8 flights instead of 4. It'll probably look better circling about with dihedrel nearer to scale, so the extra flight marks might even make up for the small penalty in KS static.  In any case, people have been known to win Kit Scale even after incurring penalties for things like spray painting their models etc.

I think you've got to feel happy with your model regardless of the penalty.
Logged
Graham Banham
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 18
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 574




Ignore
« Reply #31 on: May 15, 2018, 05:45:16 PM »

“In any case, people have been known to win Kit Scale even after incurring penalties for things like spray painting their models etc.”

 Grin  yep, three times and every one was painted! However, things have moved on since then, and adhering to the KS rules  to gain as much advantage out of the static score as possible is somewhat more of a requirement now as the entry numbers and standard of model has increased, but Pete’s idea is sound: enter it in both classes.

The irony is that the original change you want to make, i.e. a reduction in dihedral to more scale like amounts, would be penalised in kit scale but rewarded in open, so i would suggest tailoring it to open but still fly it in kit scale as well as a means of getting more flights.
Logged
ZK-AUD
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 34
Offline Offline

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 980



Ignore
« Reply #32 on: May 15, 2018, 06:58:25 PM »


As it turned out, this has worked quite well (see photos) although there's a little bit of distortion on the ply spinner base because it's only 1/32" (I loathe cutting ply!) - should really have been 1/16". The only thing I need to worry about now (famous last words) is whether I can bend and cut the wire for the freewheel so that it projects less than about 2mm.


Making perfectly round discs is easy-peasy - get a block of wood and insert a length of thick wire or similar near the edge as a spigot  Cut a rough blank out of your ply or whatever and drill a hole in the middle that's a good fit on your spigot.  Now offer it up to your table sander (all modellers should have one of these) and rotate the blank until the correct sized disc appears.

I uses this system to make discs and washers in balsa, ply, aly, brass, steel and styrene.  I also use it to make vacform moulds for nose cowlings without requiring a lathe
Logged
abl
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 8
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 206


Topic starter
Andy Blackburn



Ignore
« Reply #33 on: May 16, 2018, 11:23:36 AM »

Alternatively, reduce the dihedral (and make any other changes you feel appropriate) find a three view, cover/ paint it according to a colour profile, add three photos of the aircraft, one of which being the aircraft you modelled, and enter open rubber with it instead?

The open classes really are as simple as that. No excuse then to subject yourself to the ‘mad world of kit scale judging’. Any model that flies well enough to do 15 secs plus in a reasonable manner is off to a flying start, no pun intended.

Well...  Smiley

Without getting into a lengthy discussion about everything that's wrong with the open scale rules, I happen to like kit scale in spite of the penalty points scheme, which I'm prepared to put up with because the class has other significant redeeming qualities. I have, however, started adding a lengthy list of excuses and hopeless pleas for clemency for all the crimes against the kit scale rules that I have committed to the back of the documentation pack, and I find that makes me feel a bit better.

...
It'll probably look better circling about with dihedral nearer to scale, so the extra flight marks might even make up for the small penalty in KS static.
...

Pete, that's a very good point that I hadn't previously considered.  Smiley

...
I think you've got to feel happy with your model regardless of the penalty.

That encompasses my feelings exactly; for me - it's important that it captures the character of the full-size so if the plan/kit has a feature that prevents this, then I'm going to have to try and fix it regardless of the consequences.


As it turned out, this has worked quite well (see photos) although there's a little bit of distortion on the ply spinner base because it's only 1/32" (I loathe cutting ply!) - should really have been 1/16". The only thing I need to worry about now (famous last words) is whether I can bend and cut the wire for the freewheel so that it projects less than about 2mm.


Making perfectly round discs is easy-peasy - get a block of wood and insert a length of thick wire or similar near the edge as a spigot  Cut a rough blank out of your ply or whatever and drill a hole in the middle that's a good fit on your spigot.  Now offer it up to your table sander (all modellers should have one of these) and rotate the blank until the correct sized disc appears.

I uses this system to make discs and washers in balsa, ply, aly, brass, steel and styrene.  I also use it to make vacform moulds for nose cowlings without requiring a lathe

Ah, sorry, I probably didn't explain my issue very well - the disc is round and there's no appreciable run-out (because I effectively did what you described), but because the backplate is only 1/32" thick it's bent/creased slightly so that some parts of the spinner backplate are closer to the fuselage than others. But it's not a lot, so I might be able to ignore it.
Logged
Graham Banham
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 18
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 574




Ignore
« Reply #34 on: May 16, 2018, 03:41:52 PM »

Fair enough, although as Andy Sephton has set out his proposals for revision of the indoor scale classes in the current issue of BMFA News, perhaps now is the time to raise your concerns about the open class rules as they stand with the Scale Technical Committee and what you’d like to see changed?
Logged
abl
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 8
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 206


Topic starter
Andy Blackburn



Ignore
« Reply #35 on: May 16, 2018, 04:08:34 PM »

Fair enough, although as Andy Sephton has set out his proposals for revision of the indoor scale classes in the current issue of BMFA News, perhaps now is the time to raise your concerns about the open class rules as they stand with the Scale Technical Committee and what you’d like to see changed?

I've already done it; I sent quite a long letter to the STC soon after the Nats, and then did another one when Andy aired his new proposals (which are, IIRC: 1. Combine Rubber/CO2 Electric into a single Open Scale class and create an Advanced Kit Scale class, 2. Top three modellers in Kit Scale to be banned from entering Kit Scale in the future and 3. Peanut Scale models should be judged to the Pistachio Schedule)

A.
Logged
Andrew Darby
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 60
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,077




Ignore
« Reply #36 on: May 16, 2018, 06:02:27 PM »

Having read the article I’ve sent Andy my thoughts too.

It seems that the only ideas proposed towards fixing the open classes seem to be by buggering about with kit scale.

So take the most popular class, bugger around with different sub classes and ban people from it and expect them, ne force them, to compete in the open classes... erm, not for me!

Leave kit scale alone, and fix the problems with open with solutions for open, like for example reduction of the onerous requirements for documenation, or the rewarding of trickier models, or reduced qualifying times for first time out models or modellers etc...

I’n not that bothered about the nuts, so no opinion on that.

Rant over, sorry Andy  Cheesy
Logged

Klunk
danmellor
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 51
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,149




Ignore
« Reply #37 on: May 16, 2018, 06:40:18 PM »

As Mr. Darby said; Banning podium winners in KS would simply see me not bothering to enter any more. I love competing in KS exactly as it is. Whether or not I ever get round to an open model is not going to be affected by not being able to enter Kit Scale ever again.

Dan.
Logged
vintagemike
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 94



Ignore
« Reply #38 on: May 17, 2018, 01:36:23 AM »

Banning winners in Kit Scale is only going to ruin probably the most popular comp for scale models, maybe banning winning models, or models more than one year old might work, for open what about something along the lines of the old "class 2" "stand off scale" R/C comps?
Logged
SP250
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 321



Ignore
« Reply #39 on: May 17, 2018, 05:24:19 AM »

Gents

Can I suggest that you email those thoughts directly to myself and copy Mike Stuart & Andy Sephton.
That way we will have direct replies to Andy's article and rules suggestions.

Having a discussion on a forum like HPA or face to face with each other, does not put your views (for or against) in the hands of the STC.
By emailing me, it will ensure that all you opinions are heard. 
So far i have direct emailed opinions from Andy Blackburn, Graham Banham, Mike Stuart and Richard Crossley only.

Bear in mind Andy, Mike, myself and a number of others, do the Scale Tech Committee work voluntarily.
But we do need hard and fast documented views for us to be able to gauge opinion and direct our decisions correctly to the mood of the competitors.

Comments to each other on here ain't going to get it done.

John M
Logged
Jack Plane
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 23
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 960




Ignore
« Reply #40 on: May 17, 2018, 05:53:02 AM »

I also have a view, which I'd like to email, but the last few posts have certainly been useful in reminding me.

Thanks
Jon
Logged
abl
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 8
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 206


Topic starter
Andy Blackburn



Ignore
« Reply #41 on: June 24, 2018, 12:24:05 PM »

Meanwhile, back with the plot after months of outdoor flying, holidays and the like...

I spent some time with a 3-view and some tracing paper to try and work out how much dihedral I'd be happy with; I've gone with 1/16" washout on all except the port lower wing panel with 3mm (~1/8") dihedral on the top panel and 8mm (~5/16") on the lower panels. To my eyes, this doesn't look too bad (photo #1), but hope I haven't reduced it too much. Probably means that it'll be an indoors-and-calm-evenings-only flyer, though.

Since there's now washout on the top wing that wasn't there before, the top wing incidence has been increased to about 2.6 degrees by dropping the top wing trailing edge about 1/16" using an incidence template tack-glued in place (photo #2); this also makes the model look a bit better as otherwise the top wing looks a bit too far away from the fuselage. The taped-together structure is shown in photo #3, and the adjustments to the struts (wing incidence is different and reduced dihedral has brought the wing tip closer together) are shown in photo #4.

I've thought at some length about making a more scale engine and weighed up the potential Kit Scale static points loss, and on balance I really need to make a better engine than the simplified profile representation on the plan, purely for my own edification and delight. This might not be as complex as it sounds because it might be possible to do a reasonable job using just a few extra parts along with some of those supplied; we shall see.
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: DPC Models Kit Scale Pfalz D.III
Re: DPC Models Kit Scale Pfalz D.III
Re: DPC Models Kit Scale Pfalz D.III
Re: DPC Models Kit Scale Pfalz D.III
Logged
Jack Plane
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 23
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 960




Ignore
« Reply #42 on: June 25, 2018, 06:51:34 AM »

Nice to see progress on this one!  Smiley
Logged
abl
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 8
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 206


Topic starter
Andy Blackburn



Ignore
« Reply #43 on: July 28, 2018, 06:25:23 AM »

Finally finished the covering; normally the fuselage would be covered in two or three pieces of tissue, applied wet, but this is Peck silver/grey tissue which has very little wet strength so the fuselage had to be done in strips - and it took ages. It looks as though I might have to cut out and replace a couple of areas on the lower fuselage because it wasn't applied correctly and has wrinkled (photo #2).

The wings and tail have come out OK, although an astute observer might notice a small tear in the port upper wing near the leading edge which is similar in radius to a Tamiya acrylic paint bottle; this is because I was a bit careless when weighting it down to dry after being doped Sad . I'll have to replace that section as well.

Weights are:

Component Structure Covered
Fuselage, nose button & tailskid5.5 g6.75 g
Top wing1.5 g3.42 g
Bottom wing1.1 g2.53 g
Stabiliser0.2 g0.61 g
Fin & rudder (+wire hinges)0.1 g0.39 g

Photo #5 shows the master plan for a more scale-like engine; I'm quite pleased with it - There's just enough detail for the model, there aren't many parts, some of them are adapted from the existing laser-cut pieces, and it should be quite simple to put together.

I'm now going to be otherwise engaged for a couple of weeks but I'm expecting to be able to get the Pfalz flying in time for the new indoor season in September.
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: DPC Models Kit Scale Pfalz D.III
Re: DPC Models Kit Scale Pfalz D.III
Re: DPC Models Kit Scale Pfalz D.III
Re: DPC Models Kit Scale Pfalz D.III
Re: DPC Models Kit Scale Pfalz D.III
Logged
skyraider
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 88
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1,244

WWW

Ignore
« Reply #44 on: July 28, 2018, 11:32:39 AM »

Looking great Abl!  Nice presentation of upcoming details.

Skyraider
Logged
LASTWOODSMAN
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 19
Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 483


REAL PLANES HAD ROUND ENGINES AND TWO WINGS



Ignore
« Reply #45 on: July 28, 2018, 01:52:18 PM »

Hi abl !    I am following your 16" Pfalz D.III with interest ...  I built the same model 2 years ago and really enjoyed the build - especially the laser cut details.   Then I got carried away and put heavy rigging on it and a detailed engine, and now it weighs 45 grams, inclusive of rubber motor, all up weight.  I also doubled up the ribs for a more scale look.   So no flying for mine ...  These little DPCM kits are very neat and fun to build I found.    I am looking forward to seeing how you trim it out.   Your model looks great  Shocked  , and thanks for posting your weights. Smiley

LASTWOODSMAN
Richard
« Last Edit: July 28, 2018, 03:25:38 PM by LASTWOODSMAN » Logged

OH, I HAVE SLIPPED THE SURLY BONDS OF EARTH ... UP, UP THE LONG DELIRIOUS BURNING BLUE ... SUNWARD I'VE CLIMBED AND JOINED THE TUMBLING MIRTH OF SUN-SPLIT CLOUDS ...
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!