Templates and Ribs

[Will]

I've been rereading James Hay Stevens (designer of Skybirds kits) 1933 book "Scale Model Aircraft" whilst considering my next solid (only 1&1/2 more cockades to paint on the P-40) and have a couple of observations to share.  I presume (since there is an ad for 1/36 blueprints of the same fleet of planes in the back of the book) that the 1/72 drawings in the book are just reductions, in which case there are a couple of omissions that later authors definitely mention.

Stevens book does not mention the use of templates, nor are they shown on the drawings.  He merely gives the following description for shaping the fuselage:

"The Fuselage is now ready for rounding.  The nose is rounded, top and bottom, as far back as the leading edge of the wings; aft of that, the top only is rounded."- p14, Stevens, James Hay; John Hamilton Ltd, London 1933

That's it???!!!!  I wonder if he was considering ready shaped elements like "his" Skybirds kits though it was very early days for those and the book is supposed to show how to create a Hawker Hart from scratch.  Was the triumph of creating a recognisable plane from everyday materials more important than absolute accuracy?

Similarly there's no mention of ribs to the wings in the book, or on the drawings.  The models in the two photos in Stevens' book are definitely rib-less.  The few photos I've seen of completed "Skybirds" are either from the wrong angle, too poor quality to see ribbing or in the one modern photo perhaps the modeller didn't bother.  I wonder what the instructions suggested?  Maybe no-one considered ribs as that important a detail in 1933 since they were virtually a given until all-metal wings became common?

Certainly I've looked through books at photos of real WW1 fighters and the profile of the wing is usually continuous between the ribs rather than like a starved horse!  Certainly if the ribs were as pronounced as on some plastic kits there would presumably be terrific variation in lift across the length of the wings which surely affects the flight characteristics?

Those old biplanes will be a bit easier if I ignore the ribs...

Will

[Balsabasher]

Will, every plan that I have by James Hay Stevens does not show a single template ! as the Skybirds kits were spindled wood fuselages with more or less a shaped wing I guess that people accepted that as the aerofoil without any further shaping,on reflection the kits were basic and made for production even back then.
Stevens went on to become a respected aeronautical engineer working in France for a time and returned to the UK to live on a farm,the farm had its own airstrip with a Moth Minor,DH.84 Dragon and a Leopard Moth.
As a person he fascinates me because when he did those original drawings he was still a schoolboy,he must have been held in high esteem to be given the draughting jobs for those kits.
Barry.

[Will]

Barry,
Yes, there was a Tomahawk (P-40C) on eBay the other day - the fuselage and wing looked only basic shaped, presumably the sanding involved for most customers was only to give a suitable finish for painting.   It seemed to be in a printed brown bag rather than the tied onto cardboard box type I've read about – perhaps this was an economy for wartime?

The Tomahawk went for £45, there've been a few Veron and Keilkraft etc "Solids" kits going for £30 or so recently, but I guess the buyers are kit collectors rather than it showing any revival of solid modelling.  Hopefully the successful purchasers will join SMM and post the plans / instructions for these kits.

Regards
Will

[Ken Pugh]

Will,

You are fortunate to have access to an old book that provides knowledge of their techniques.  I would love to read such books.  As far as the ribs in WWI wings are concerned, I, too, noticed the same thing.  I draw your attention to the thread I wrote earlier:

http://smm.solidmodelmemories.net/SMF/index.php?topic=141.0

Sometimes I think the drawings showing such heavy scalloping in the wing are trying to point out that they were covered in fabric.  As you say, if they were really shaped that way they would have serious lift problems.  The plastic model culture also have some serious misconceptions that they insist are "scale."  Small plastic models of WWI aircraft should show a straight wing with practically no dips between ribs.  All one has to do is look at a pic of the actual aircraft to see this obvious truth.  They also have an infatuation with engraved panel lines that are totally out of scale, along with staining these lines heavily to bring attention to them.  They are out of scale on WWII planes and completely ridiculous on jets, yet they win contests with these "scale" details.

I started using templates only because the solid hull ship modelers use them.  I later found them to be unneccesary in my case.  When present on drawings they are great for showing irregularites in shape, but if the shape is rounded, it must fit in the profile.  I just get the profile and plan view right, then round, mostly by feel.  I knew I was on the right track when I found an article in Air & Space Magazine of professional solid modelers who said thay it is all about the feel and that you can't get the shapes right by sight.  I, too, rely more on feel than my eyes.  If it feels right, it is faired, just like in a boat where they believe if it looks right it must be right.

As far as accuracy goes, it depends on what one is trying to achieve.  I think there is a difference between your typical model and a miniature.  I view a model as a painting, you sometimes have to do unscale things to suggest scale details.  With regards to miniatures, there is just so much you can possibly do.  When you scale down the size and have to deal with actual materials, it is hard to get things to cooperate.  Drawings also cannot get but so accurate because they try to describe 3D objects in 2D.  I use drawings for rough shaping and photos for refining the shape.

It is funny how the plastic modelers think they are on the cutting edge of scale yet they constantly complain about the inaccuracies of their models.  When you look at a model of a jet with a complex shape like the SU-27, you have to get an appreciation of how hard it is to replicate those shapes.  The designers are probably trying their best to get it right, but it just isn't that easy.  Again, that's where I think using feel to fair the shape is valuable because templates and measurements from drawings aren't always correct.  Fairing it by feel can be successful if the real thing is actually faired.

Yes, a lengthy and rambling post, but I enjoy these types of discussions.  Instead of just going along with what I am told, I tend to investigate whether things make sense.  I guess that's why I am not convinced by what the TV and print media tell me what to think.  Sometimes the "consensus" and "prevailing wisdom" are flawed.

Ken Pugh

[Balsabasher]

Yes Will I saw it,this was a late Skybird done in wartime utility packaging,they were only available to members of the Armed forces or Spotter posts,a remarkable find but I could not warrant spending that sort of money on what was really a few bits of wood with historic plan,hope that it goes to a good home anyway.
Barry.

Barry,
Yes, there was a Tomahawk (P-40C) on eBay the other day - the fuselage and wing looked only basic shaped, presumably the sanding involved for most customers was only to give a suitable finish for painting.   It seemed to be in a printed brown bag rather than the tied onto cardboard box type I've read about – perhaps this was an economy for wartime?

The Tomahawk went for £45, there've been a few Veron and Keilkraft etc "Solids" kits going for £30 or so recently, but I guess the buyers are kit collectors rather than it showing any revival of solid modelling.  Hopefully the successful purchasers will join SMM and post the plans / instructions for these kits.

Regards
Will

[Balsabasher]

Well said Ken,the fact is that any model you do not have a natural 'feel' for its shape is not for you,I rarely use templates rather look at photographs and study form,you can see straight away if there is a compound fillet that needs extra care,take a look at aircraft windscreens and you will see what I mean,there are round glazed panels and acute designs that require care with the knife,templates are only as accurate as the chap who did the plan,in a lot of cases that template is aproximate,the old 'Aircraft of the Fighting Powers' plans are a good example of this,they did mean well but did not always get it right ?
And dont forget your best template ever-The small steel rule that you sit along the top of the fuselage say and draw it towards you,look at the shadow so created and see what you need to take away,the same with aerofoils,basically you get good old Clark Y with flat bottom,Bi-symetrical sections for the faster machines,WW1 use that flattish section that the kit people always seem to get wrong,and those awful saggy fabric effects,fabric tightens like a drum across the ribs which it is strung too with cord under and over the ribs,if it flapped in the breeze like that it would be dangerous and unserviceable,as regards those highly weathered things dont even get me going there ! thats a kit fetish thing,oil  around the cowlings but never ever dirt engrained in panels like that,subtle finishing is a real art and best left alone if you are not sure how it really looks.
So use templates by all means but do not take them as gospel accurate,common sense and feel are the key building factors that no doubt Mr Stevens used as well to build his excellent subjects.
Above all enjoy your building and do it to your own limitations and ability,that is far more important.
Barry.

[Will]

Ken, I agree with all you wrote.  I look at the plastic modellers work which seems fantastic but top speed of one of their Spitfires would be 250mph with all the trenches on the wings.  The panel lines really are invisible in photos.  Even when you are quite close to the real thing there's a perception of panels rather than actually seeing joints.  On the other hand I did read a book by a wartime pilot where an edict came from on high that their Spits were to be filled and polished to achieve higher speeds - unfortunately the extra weight of filler and glossy paint overwhelmed the less than youthful engines and they ended up slower!

Books - apart from Scale Model Aircraft which was "ouch" £22.50, I havent paid more than £2 - £5 for any of the old classic solid modelling books, all off eBay.  Keep looking but be wary of Amazon - eg Woodason at £20-£100 but a copy went on eBay the other day for £1.70!!! There seems to be a regular "churn" of these books, but perhaps thats due to sad reasons.

For my example of a hard to model item, I've owned three "proper" Minis in my youth - of all the different models i've seen only the old Airfix 1/32 captured the shape, even Tamiya seemed to get it pigeon-toed and cross-eyed!

Regards
Will

[Oceaneer99]

This has been a very interesting discussion, fellows.  While I do use templates for cross section checks, I agree with Barry that the feel is very important.  I've had some subjects with circular or semi-circular cross sections, and your fingers can easily tell when something is not quite round.  I used to help carve wooden masts and spars for boats, with four or five carvers going at different sections with drawknives, and we never used templates or anything other than our hands to check for roundness.

Garet

[Balsabasher]

Garet I think that is an excellent example with the masts,I often get people who ask me how I know which shape to carve to ? my answer is by feel and experience,perhaps raw beginners would benefit from the guidance of templates as for example during WW2 many people tried their hands for the first time at carving and needed that shape to guide them,as they say good old Mk.1 Eyeball takes some beating !
Barry.

[Oceaneer99]

I should add that when rounding masts, we started with a square cross-section. Then, we made it an octogon, then 16-sided, and so on. I use the same technique with models, even for oval cross sections. For ovals, of course you start with a rectangle and have an octogon with different length sides, but your eye does a good job of figuring out what the lengths should be. The feel part comes when you start knocking off the corners to make a smooth rounded shape.

Garet