Steve Wheeler

Hi Andy, Yes, the darker version goes on the top surface, but the print direction can vary as you have seen. The appropriate direction for a particular type can be checked by reference to photographs by 'those who know'... I usually rely on the captions or the text  of my reference sources. If you haven't already done so, I suggest getting the relevant  'Windsock Datafiles' from Albatros Publications....... type history, loads of photos, colour plates ,etc,etc. You will probably find all you need  there. Regards.... Steve.

Hi Ben, At the risk of telling you what you already know: One, [of many], method of covering with tissue is to cut pieces of tissue to appropriate shapes for the contours and apply unthinned dope over the frame at the edges of the piece. Let it dry a bit, then lay the piece in place and apply  thinner over the doped areas to soak through to reactivate the dope, and a gentle rub with a finger should stick it down. For the adjoining pieces it's a good idea to apply a bit more slightly thinned dope to the overlapping edges before using thinner as before. If not satisfied with the result, it can be safely removed with more thinner.  [Make sure you have adequate ventilation with all these fumes!] To tighten the covering I use a 50/50 mixture of water and Isopropyl Alcohol...[get it from your Pharmacy, be prepared to explain why you want it , and try to look innocent!....] This mixture dries very quickly... the alcohol evaporates and sort of dilutes the water....I just lightly brush it on with a wide soft brush. Remember to pin down wing and tail surfaces to avoid warps. I use little balsa blocks underneath to allow fresh air in. On a small model I then apply two or three coats of very thin dope.... 1 part dope to 3 or 4 parts thinner...again, pinning down until dry.  For the final colouring it is possible to overlay cut-out coloured tissue trim and markings, using the dope thinner again. Paint can be used, but watch out for weight gain. This may all sound a bit  'old-fashioned'  but it becomes easier with practice, and it works! I've still got to learn how to use the modern materials like Litespan and Solartex... now they look very scary! Regards..... Steve.

Hi Ben,  Sorry to hear that...  construction or flying problems are part of the learning process, so I hope you will try again.  If you'd like to describe what you did that went wrong,  I'm sure someone would be able to help you sort it out for next time. Cheers... Steve.

Beginners'  Luck perhaps?

Hi Andy. I'd have felt the same about that aileron process. Although you seem to have done it successfully, I just wonder if it would be easier to cut the ribs to the plan, and insert the balsa for the mating edges, thus building in the ailerons as part of the wing assembly. You could cut the trailing edge easily enough after completion.  I think you are probably right about the reason: every aileron related rib being different would increase production costs; but hey, it's only wood,... feel free to modify the parts to suit your own ideas. If that's a bit scary, make some copies or template tracings before you cut the parts up; you then have a back-up if the mods go pear-shaped!

The Plan gives a balance point just to the rear of the top wing mainspar; ie the rear edge of the leading edge sheeting. This comes out at  73mm  from the  L/E. The Kit instructions advise that this aircraft be flown in an appropriate scale manner; attempts to perform modern extreme manoeuvres could well end in tears! Regards... Steve.

Bit Big.... but what the h..ll! Cheers Steve.

Hi Eric,   I understand exactly what you are saying...... who needs grammar anyway!  Thanks for your interest...  Steve.

Thanks Eric, I really appreciate your help. I think I can now return to the drawing board with a bit more confidence!  Cheers,  Steve.

Thanks Eric, ... may I trouble you further? a. On tailplane incidence... I may have got the convention wrong in describing the setting as positive. The Hannover  'Type Diagram' of 1918  shows the tailplane set with the leading edge up, and noted as +2 degrees. The lower tailplane is well below the fuselage/crankshaft datum line. Am I right to assume that in flight the incidence would produce a lifting of the tail until it was at neutral to the airflow, thus reducing the effective wing angle of attack by the same 2 degrees? b. Several other German aircraft, notably the later Fokkers, had tailplanes on the upper longeron, ie above the fuselage datum line, set with the leading edge up. I suspect that something else is going on besides simple flight attitude, but I don't know enough to figure it out.  Is it some sort of balancing act with the high lift characteristics of the thicker Fokker wing or the triplane configuration? Does this set-up work in model form? c. I am also unsure about the reason for inverted airfoil section tailplanes, eg. the Pfalz DIII or the Rumpler C Types. I assume the effect would be a downwards force at the tail, creating a nose -up attitude, but why do some have it when other apparently similar aircraft don't?  What about reproducing this on a model? d. Hannover wing section. This is a fairly typical German undercambered section, and at 1:16 scale it has a chord of 112mm. It has a very small radius leading edge, so is it ok to use the line from leading to trailing edge to set  the incidence?   A number of similar model designs use a flat bottomed section. Is this for simplicity of construction, or is there any aerodynamic advantage over a scale undercambered section?... [I'd prefer to use the latter.]  I suppose one way forward would be to build a simple generic model with the facility to adjust and substitute flying surfaces to experiment with; but  that rather seem like re-inventing the wheel, so I thought I'd ask first!  Cheers,  Steve.

Hello everyone, I have modelled aircraft on and off  for many years, and on retirement  I now have the time to try to catch up on all the new ideas, techniques and materials that have evolved since my 'Keilkraft Days'. I am new to this forum; but from what I have seen so far, there will be those who can answer any question I can come up with; so here goes!  I have just read a lot  of useful posts on the subject of biplane incidences, but an attempt to produce a design for a 30"  electric R/C model of  a Hannover CLIIIa, [WW1 German 2-seater with biplane tail.]  has given rise to issues which I don't think have been covered. On this aircraft both tailplanes were set at  +2 degrees incidence. The Upper wing was at +4.8, and the Lower at +4.6. These values relate to a datum line based on the engine crankshaft line. The lower Tailplane had a fairly thick symmetrical section, and the 2 degree incidence makes it's axis coincide with the propellor shaft centre; creating in effect a new datum line from prop to tail with 2 degrees engine downthrust and a tail at neutral. Is it a reasonable conclusion to regard this line as an effective 'aerodynamic datum', relating to a level flight  'tail-up' attitude; thus producing wing incidences of 2.8 and 2.6degrees? When related to this second datum, the above scale values are not far removed from many published plans for flying models of similar subjects; in the interests of scale outline, would it be reasonable to use them on the proposed model?  Thanks,  Steve.

Hi everyone, I'm just entering retirement, and after a lifetime of  'constructive' hobby activities: including model railways, and aircraft , both flying and static; restoring '50s' motorcycles, major house DIY projects etc etc;  I want to realise my youthful ambition to learn to fly R/C scale WW1 models.  Having moved to Suffolk; I am now a novice member of Bury St Edmunds MFC. I have an 'Arising Star', which has had it's first flight  in the hands of my tutor. Now I'm just waiting for  suitable weather conditions. [ preferably crash-proof] Cheers, Steve.