Posts by Leif Ohlsson

Bussibär, I would like to thank you deeply for taking the trouble to advice Gummikuh. The problem was not the same for me, nor the solution. But your approach made my try once more to get to the bottom of my own problem.

Your solution (go to the systems printer/fax section) was the first part of the solution. The second was a quick search on the internet for "Epson D88 driver". On the first page that came up, there was a special section for "Making my Epson work on Snow Leopard". I checked and I did indeed have Snow Leopard (OS 10.6).

On that page there was a trouble-shooting section where you could learn that if the drive routin said something about "Gutenberg..." you should delete it. Pretty daring for me, but I did it. Then I was supposed to pull out the data cable to the printer, and try again. Nothing. Then I shut the printer down, and tried again. And hey, presto. Suddenly I got the option to choose a brand new Epson D88 drive routine, which said nothing about Gutenberg.

The first good sign was that I got back a couple of features I had been missing, such as printers tools, how much ink was missing, etc. This promised good things. So I printed a test square 150 x 250 mm. And it came out absolutely beautifully correct. No more need for making special corrected printing copies, etc.

Like I said. I am deeply grateful for having been pointed in the right direction, even if you were on a Windows system, and I am on a Mac OSX. You showed me the way. Thank you. - Leif

Hello Gummikuh

I will be much interested in the outcome of this, since I have a similar problem with my Epson D88 printer (not scanner). See this post at Papermodelers.com. My error wasn't as large as yours, though. Turns out I have to make a specail print copy were everything is scaled 101.3 percent horizontally and 103.4 percent vertically to get the correct measurement as compared to what's drawn in the computer.

Most frustrating.

I can only recommend people to make a test rectangle in any graphic programme, which is some exact measure, such as 200 mm x 150 mm or some similiar measurement, print that, and measure the outcome. Then you could make your own corrections.

I have not found any way of correcting this in the print dialogue or menu for my printer. I can scale anything an equal amount horizontally and vertically, but that doesn't help much, does it.

Leif

Congratulations! I really like the sideview, in particular:

Leif

I am glad that my original suspicion from the first post discussing the propeller turned out to be correct:

Quote from Leif Ohlsson

...the similar angle of your two shots may not have told the whole story.

And, likewise, the observation about the particular kind of propeller of the Gladiator in the last post discussing the propeller:

Quote from Leif Ohlsson

Fairey-Reed propellers are rather special, and it is possible that your model is closer to what they looked like than I thought from the start.

Clearly, both these statements are true both of the Halinski design, and your build of it.

That being said - and I'm glad to fully concede both of these points - would you mind very much if we philosophized a bit further about propeller making in paper modeling, using your propeller as an example?

The main thing about propellers is that the "twist", if we may use that term, is largest close to the center, and very small at the periphery. Paper model designs usually solve the problem of modeling this feature by glueing the propeller blades at a compromise angle at the spinner, let's say 30-45°. In the best of cases, the design then provides directions for the builder to reduce this initial twist towards the periphery. Or the modeler might do this on his or her own initiative. This is a fairly straight-forward problem (at least in theory) for thick wooden props, and actually quite doable for adjustable props, like in the DH88 Comet and most WWII aircraft, where the propeller root is almost circular. There, the problem is much easier to solve, both for designers and modellers (although not always easy to carry out in practice, as we all have experience of).

Yours was a different kind of problem. The Fairey-Reed propeller is very thin and very flat at its center. Therefore, there has to be a very marked twist very close to the center, which in fact makes the prop, as seen from the side, seem thicker than it really is (see the photos and drawings of Fairey-Reed propellers). From this early heavy twist, the blades are then twisted back again towards the flat initial condition of the thin center as we get farther out. (Incidentally, this is not always clearly shown by drawings, but always in photos, which goes to show that the persons making the drawings have not grasped the character of this kind of propeller either...)

I now realize your problem, which stems from how the designer tried to solve this challenge. You described very well how the designer had tried to induce the early heavy twist by the small wedge-like parts. This part, you did not have any control over. Whether this is good or bad, I can't say, but at least it speaks very well of the Halinski model designer that he or she obviously has realized the special challenge brought by the Gladiator propeller.

The problem, as I now understand it, boils down to that from the point you mentioned - where you could actually control the amount of twist induced - from that point on one should actually reduce the twist already induced by the wedges.

The challenge this kind of propeller and the particular paper model design of it introduces, thus is to introduce as much "twist" as possible in the short section close to the center (controlled by the wedge-shaped parts), and then reduce the amount of twist introduced here as we continue towards the tip.

Of course, if one realizes that the aim of the design is to introduce this very heavy twist in a short length of prop blade closest to the center, and then decrease this angle again as we go towards the tip, the chances of a successful build increases.

Not easy to grasp, that: The Fairey-Reed propeller has to be twisted twice, from a low angle (necessitated by thin center) to a high angle in as short distance as possible ( as necessitated by propeller theory), then gradually back again to a low angle at the tip - while an ordinary thick or adjustable prop only has one twist in it, back from an initial high angle at the center to a low angle at the tip.

With this I am quite happy to leave the propeller discussion for now. And I do look forward to the finish of your exquisite model. Let me just say that I learned a lot I didn't know before (never heard about a Fairey-Reed prop, never seen a photo of one, never thought about the challenges posed by it until seeing your build - and not really understanding the magnitude of the challenge until this very moment, after seeing your final photos and reading your explanation of the design).

Leif

PS. I do hope you had a good time during your short leave of absence. A little bit of vacation?

You are of course absolutely right, Jan. That is indeed what you did. Can't understand what made me remember it otherwise. Apologies!

So, we make another point of the photo instead: What a good example of a scale-like reproduction of the full-size, not only the appearance, but the structural design.

Leif

PS. There should be a smiley called "Blushing"...

There was a comment or a question earlier by Henryk, quering whether the colour of the wheel wells (landing gear bays) really was as light as in the present build. Jan's design has the colour as wooden in general. I've always thought this might be a not entirely happy choice. Here's what the museum Comet looked like during one restoration period (1, 2):

The photos are quite interesting. We don't see anything of the covering plates of the engine/wheel bay, but I always assumed they were of aluminium. It is hard to envisage these compound shapes as being made of plywood.

The straight & level internal surfaces of the landing gear bay seem to be made of metal as well. C.f. the separation wall between the engine and the wheel bay. It is actually quite white, possibly natural aluminium.

Not a detail worth spilling any tears over, but still an interesting thing worth discussing for a while on a hot summer's evening...

Of more interest, note the huge fuel tanks (one of them has already been removed). The Comet, like the Spirit of St. Louis barely ten years earlier, was nothing but a flying fuel tank.

The first photo is of particular interest, since it gives you an idea for an alternative, more scale-like design of the model. The fuselage sides could well be made as one continuous part from tail to nose, and the top and bottom curved pieces added to the main structure formed by these long parts.

Admittedly of academic interest now that Jan's excellent design is there to be had, but perhaps something to contemplate for future designs.

Leif

Once I've started down this road, I feel a responsibility to travel it all the way to its end. This post should give you some hope - Fairey-Reed propellers are rather special, and it is possible that your model is closer to what they looked like than I thought from the start.

Here are photos of antique two-bladed Fairey-Reed propellers for sale on the internet today:

The last attachment (two photos above each other should give you an idea of the twist. But these props are still remarkably thin!

Here are a number photos of another two-bladed Fairey-Reed metal prop for sale:

Even though they are not of a three-bladed Fairey-Reed Gladiator prop, these photos of that particular brand of propeller may be helpful for you to get an idea of what to aim for.

Best regards again, Leif

Dear JC,

Could I impose one more photo upon you?:

This Wikipedia photo is of a Bolingbroke MkIV aircraft, the Canadian-built Bristol Blenheim. The point here is that it was powered by a similar Mercury engine as your Gloster Gladiator. I chose this photo since it demonstrates so well what I wanted to get across, namely the widely different angle of the propeller blade at the centre and the tip. As we have already said, it is not the same propeller as the Gladiator (this one has adjustable pitch), but the point here is to illustrate the twist of the propeller blade.

Any propeller which wouldn't be totally inefficient would have to feature a similar degree of twist of the blade, that is my point.

Enough already...

Leif

Dear JC

I sincerely hope I haven't made you feel bad about your great build of the Gladiator. I was honestly trying to address a perceived problem on the same high level as you have conducted your build, as well as your build thread. I know you as a most conscientious builder of many kinds of models, so I thought that perhaps you were not necessarily familiar with propellers.

It took me a long time to understand how a propeller really works - thinking of it as an "airscrew" chewing itself into the air like a corkscrew into a wine bottle is really not that helpful. Far better then to understand each propeller blade as a wing, which needs to meet the stream of air at an optimal angle at each point along the blade.

The problem is that the stream of air meeting this rotating wing - the prop blade - has a different direction at each point along the blade, from the center outwards. This is because it is a resultant of two airstreams - the one from straight ahead, caused by the aircraft's movement through the air, and the other from 90° to this, around the clock, caused by the propeller's rotation.

Close to the center of the prop, the airstream from ahead is about as strong as the airstream caused by rotation. Therefore the blade must be angled roughly 45°.

At the periphery, the airstream from rotation is much stronger than the stream caused by the airspeed. Therefore the blade has a very shallow angle (pitch).

It would be quite possible, and not too difficult, to sit down and calculate the required angles at different distances from the hub for an ideal Gladiator prop - with proper knowledge of engine r.p.m., prop diameter, and the gearing of the engine (lower prop r.p.m. than engine r.p.m.). Note that if you don't have a variable pitch propeller (and the Gladiator didn't have that) such a calculation would have to be a compromise, optimal for one airspeed only. Therefore, a fixed pitch prop is seldom or never optimized for take-off speed, but for the airspeed where you wish either maximum effect or maximum fuel economy.

As model builders we don't have to go to that extreme. But some effort to reflect all these concerns is always nice, I thought, and it will be noticed also by people not familiar with every aspect of propeller making. After spending some time looking at various propellers you get a kind of feeling for what looks "right" and what doesn't. I just thought your model deserved having something looking a bit more "right".

Here are a few more drawings and photos. First a couple of drawings from the airwar.ru site:

In the sideview, you will get an idea of the degree of pitch to aim for. The frontview gives a pretty good idea of the shape of the blades. The photo below is of a three-bladed prop, but not one you would like to model. The source states "Faith (serial number N5520), a Gloster Sea Gladiator Mk I, on the ground at an airfield in Malta, in about September 1940. The aircraft has been refitted with a Bristol Mercury engine and three-bladed Hamilton propeller salvaged from a Bristol Blenheim."

Therefore, pay no attention to that propeller as such, since it is a variable-pitch propeller, and I don't think the Gladiator had any such options. But it will give you an idea about the degree of pitch for any Gladiator propeller. As displayed today, in a Malta museum, this aircraft has a two-bladed propeller. Here's a more interesting photo:

The caption says: "Late series Belgian Gladiators with Fairey 3-blade propellers". The same kind of prop seems to be attached to these Gladiators:

It is a nice photo, and you get an idea of the pitch of the props, but it is still from a distance. Better then a close-up of a photo we've seen before:

I believe this might be a close-up of the Fairey Reed 3-blade propeller mentioned abover, but I am not sure. It is a most strange propeller, almost flat it seems, and therefore seemingly easy to model. But it was still twisted (of course), and hopefully this photo might be of some help in getting the pitch right. Notice how heavily the blade is twisted close to the centre, much less so towards the periphery.

Warm regards, Leif

Congratulations. A most good-looking model. And special congratulations on the landing gear, including the tail skid.

I guess one reason (besides conventions of the era) for a tail skid instead of a tail wheel would be the increased drag from a tail wheel. Simplicity and weight would account for making it non-retractable.

- L.

Dear JC,

Today I must tell you that I have grave doubts about your propeller. My first impression was that it did not have any pitch (different angles of attack along the prop blade, very large at the root, almost none at the tip) at all. The direction of rotation is - as with so many British engines - counterclockwise seen from the pilot. You seem to have got that right, but even that was difficult to ascertain.

I looked up all the photos of Gladiator propellers I could find. Most of them were two-bladed, like this one:

Here, the pitch is clearly visible. But it is two-bladed, and doesn't count. So, with the first three-bladed prop, things started looking a little bit more like your version:

Even though it looks more like your propeller, you can see quite a lot more of a pitch than I can find in your model. Note also that the propeller seems to have a sort of common bottom plate for all three blades, Perhaps even going outside the spinner. Let's have a look at another three-blader:

Again, this looks a bit more like your model, but the change in pitch is still clearly visible. Finally an artist's impression:

Here the pitch is very much evident, but since it is an artist's impression, it doesn't count. Although it might be helpful in other respects.

I don't know what to do about this. I'll just leave it to your judgement, to decide whether there is anything to be done about the prop, or whether it is in fact alright as it is - the similar angle of your two shots may not have told the whole story.

I hope you take this the way it is meant. It would be such a pity if the prop should turn out to be the thing marring an otherwise perfect model. The propeller is such a visible part that it makes a heavy mark on your overall impression of a model.

Kind regards, Leif

Quote from jcvandenbergh

But these two trumpet like horns on the second picture pointing forward between the cylinders...?

I was guessing at the guns as well, but I now see that it can't be so. The Lysander has the same trumpets (since it has the same engine). Here's a photo of a Gladiator which might give us some clues (and we can add a previously published photo as well, for a view from the other side, this time with the engine attached):

Note how the air intakes lead to something that looks like a cooler, since it has an outlet on the fuselage side as well. So I'm guessing at an oil cooler. I think you can find a marking on your model as well, which would correspond to this outlet.

If we take another look at another previously published photo, we'll see that this outlet is not a straight opening, but have something looking like a lid on it with just half a hole:

Interesting to hear if someone actually could tell us for sure if this is so.

Leif

PS. Exquisitine photography. I guess the new forum software helps as well.

JC, a few posts earlier there was a discussion about the copper colouring of the exhaust collector. There was an informed view that this colour was just ordinary rust, and oxidation caused by heat (like on a motorcycle exhaust pipe), if I understood it correctly. By chance I just came across a photo which seems to bear this out very nicely [source]:

This was a stunning tale. Congratulations on all those innovative techniques - the use of metallic paint, the copper nails, the guitar strings and many other things which I may have missed.

I hope it is OK with you if I make a note of this thread over at Papermodelers.com? (See this).

Leif

Good of you to spot the propellers. When I entered the photos, I did too, which was a first, although I have poured over these photos many times before. That really is an unusually great variation in pitch. It is not often that you see an aerodynamically correct shaped propeller almost all the way into the hub. By necessity, the last bit at the centre always will be a compromise. Here, the compromise is unusually small!

I know, since at one time I spent quite a lot of work on getting it really "right". And it was very difficult indeed. See this thread if you are interested.

Leif

You were asking about whether the framework is visible through the fabric covering. I have no better opinion than Jan, but I might be able to help you decide for yourself. Please go to the Global Flight Archive and their collections of photos for "1930s civil aircraft".

In there you will find a lot of photos, from that very competition, and some even of the aircraft you modeled. There are too many to publish here, but I picked a few just to wet your appetite.

Have a good time watching! - L.

The captions are, in order:

1. "De Havilland DH.88 Comet G-ACSR taxiing out for a flight from Mildenhall, prior to the MacRobertson Air Race, 1934."

2. "De Havilland DH.88 Comet, G-ACSS, named 'Grosvenor House' taxiing in at Mildenhall prior to the MacRobertson Air Race, 1934."

3. "De Havilland DH.88 Comet, G-ACSR, on the compass swing at a wet Mildenhall prior to the MacRobertson Air Race, 1934. Standing at the wingtip are the crew, Owen Cathcart Jones and Ken Waller, whose lives will depend on this being done accurately."

4. "Last minute checks being carried out on the undercarriage and Gipsy VI engine of one of the three de Haviland DH.88 Comet racers that took part in the 1934 MacRobertson Air Race."

5. "Two de Havilland DH88 Comets, 'Grosvenor House' and 'Black Magic', seen hangared together at Mildenhall prior to the 20th October 1934 start of the MacRobertson Air Race."

6. "MacRobertson Air Race stewards having a look at a Gipsy VI engine on one of the three de Havilland DH88 Comet to compete in the race."

7. "Some of the competitors for the 1934 Mildenhall to Melbourne MacRobertson Air Race."

8. "The MacRobertson Air Race committee severely restricted the amount of fuel to be carried and here, de Havilland DH.88 Comet, G-ACSR is being topped up. She was to come fourth with an elapsed time of 108 hours 13 minutes."

9. "De Havilland DH.88 Comet G-ACSP 'Black Magic' being swung into wind, prior to a test flight from Mildenhall, MacRobertson Air Race, 1934."

That is a GREAT canopy - congratulations! Never made one either, and glad to hear Jan hasn't either, now I can admit it.

- Leif

PS (Edited in): Now I know what Jan meant - not that he hadn't made a drawn canopy, but that he didn't make a canopy at all for his prototype - just left the framework empty. Had forgotten that by now, so many years ago...

Well, I still haven't made a drawn canopy.

Now it starts looking like a real Gladiator. Congratulations on those exhaust tubes. And the successful mounting of the engine. A great step forward.

Leif

Well, Hemingway gave you some tips in the thread about An absolute beginner's adventures in SketchUp.

Nowadays, there is an even better tool, namely Flattery. See the thread by Hemingway: Flattery für Sketchup, ein Abwicklungstool mit SVG-Export

From there on in you work in your usual vector graphic programme.

Good luck on the road you've choose to go!

Leif

If you can stand a light touch, English language, some attempts at being humourous, and not managing to finish (like so many things), you could also have a look at:

An absolute beginner's adventures in SketchUp

I hope you are able to enjoy it. I had some fun doing it...

Leif

Very instructive photos, most helpful. I now understand the function of the three x three rod structures which carry the entire cowling. As you say, JC, the shorter ones clearly are stabilizing the long ones, like three tripods, which ultimately carry the whole cowling, including the exhaust collector ring.

Never understood this as clearly before. Good job. - L.

Quote

Taking into account the small scale, my cardboard engine gives a pretty good impression of the real thing

It does indeed!

Here's another one (source), sort of reflecting the stage you are at now with the cowling. What you see, and what you've built so far, seems to be the exhaust collector ring. The exhaust stubs connect to this ring, which has two outlets at the lower end, one on each side.

See also these two photos from Airliners.net (1, 2).

Perhaps the three supports we were discussing will attach to this exhaust collection ring, and thus the cowling? Note the different, slightly burned, colour of the exhaust ring.

This is a common feature of several British aircraft. I remember learning about it in connection with the Westland Lysander. I now notice that the Lysander had a similar Bristol Mercury engine.

I got interested in the comparison, and dug out a couple of photos of the Lysander engine mount. I think they look very much like the Gladiator, wouldn't you agree?

The interesting feature is that in two of them you will see that the thin supports we were discussing in fact do attach to the exhaust ring. They seem to be what keeps the entire cowling in place. Could that be so?

And those small wires are support for something, right? The exhaust collerctor ring perhaps. Because the pushrods are already in the casing on the front you already made.

Here's an original Bristol Mercury (made in Sweden no less), and another Bristol Mercury. Your model compares very well, doesn't it? - L.

Source: Wikipedia Bristol Mercury

This may sound like empty praise, but indeed, I am seriously wondering whether I have ever seen anything of such museum quality built in paper. Your work is truly outstanding, and I hope you don't mind if I write a short notice about it for our Englishspeaking friends at Papermodelers.com.

Leif

Quote

Remember that the total diameter of all this is exactly 38 mm

I am not forgetting this for a minute (although it would be easy to do so, with such good quality of the photos). The quality of this work is a feast for the eye to behold. - L.

That is heart-breakingly crisp, both the build and the photo. GREAT engine, GREAT photography! - L.

PS. I'd like to amend my previous statement about the mental level of cameras. They are not stupid, more like totally dependent on instructions.

You must have given your camera excellent instructions for this one.

OK, J.C. No disrespect intended - just being curious.

So, Jan was right - the camera hesitated what white-point to use. You know, there probably is a setting in your camera, where you can decide what lighting conditions it should adapt to - automatic, daylight, incandescent (ordinary, old-fashioned light-bulbs), or fluorescent (most energy-saving lamps). Makes a world of difference, once I discovered that.

And J.C. - again, no disrespect intended - there is no such thing as "pure nature" when it comes to photography - just varying renderings. The camera decides on how best to render an image of reality. The outcome varies enormously depending on lighting conditions and settings.

Which is why I always nowadays adjust all my photos in Photoshop to create the rendering of "pure nature" which I - not the stupid camera - believe is the best.

End of today's sermon. And it still is a great little engine. - L.

That is a great little engine! What's with the different colours - artistic effect in Photoshop? - L.

Well done! - And for a most worthy cause. - Leif

What an amazing and good task you have undertaken, Godwin! - L.

A real crosshair made up of thin parts of wires - that is very good. In double scale I never dared anything like that, but printed a cross on a transparency and lined it with a thin strip of paper.

The trick to dismember a piece of electric wiring is very good. Comes in very handy for making all sorts of wires instead of thread.

Leif

No, your tailwheel seems spot on, JC. And thank you for the beautiful video, instructive in all the aspects you pointed out. The airbrakes really are quite prominent.

Quote

...the tailwheel normally only touched the ground in the final phase of the landing.

Lately I've learned that this is called a "wheels" landing, as distinct from a "three-pointer". A wheels landing does not stress the fuselage structure as much as a three-pointer might do - particularly if you happen to bungle it and touch down with the tailwheel before the main wheels!

As I understand it, wheels landings are quite commonly recommended for a number of tailwheel aircraft, "taildraggers", including big ones like the DC3.

- L.

Did you solder those three wires? Nice work!

About the square tailwheel, even a much later aircraft, like the early jet DH Vampire, had a really "square" nosewheel. I believe the idea was to provide increased directional stability at takeoff.

Many commentators have noted that the Vampire's noswheel is almost identical to the tailwheel of a DH Mosquito.

In the first photo the museum people obviously have turned the nosewheel of their Vampire 180 degrees around to push or drag the aircraft into its proper place. It does not look very realistic to leave it like that...

The second photo is supposedly "the tailwheel of a Jet Provost", another early British jet. That can't be, however, since the Jet Provost did not have a tailwheel. If it indeed is a tailwheel, it could be from the earlier Piston Provost.

Now that you mention it, I really don't know if they were massive or inflatable. Interesting question.

Anyway, it is a fine photo of the same type of wheel, which is supposed to be "anti-shimmy", non-slip. Looks a lot like your much earlier Gladiator. And the Gladiator would certainly have needed such a tyre taking off from a wet and slippery hangar-cruiser deck.

Like most aircraft with either a tail- or nosewheel the Gladiator would have had an option to let the tailwheel castor (freely swivel), or to lock it in a straight ahead position for take-off. This would have been done with a lever in the cockpit.

End of today's sermon. What will be the text for tomorrow?, I wonder.

-L.

Quote

... back to the Gladiator: isn't she fine and hasn't she got beautiful legs

Indeed she is, and she has indeed! - L.

Hello JC,

Return wire was my guess as well, since the forward wire, as you say, definitely runs between the fixed parts of the wings. Haven't found any confirmation, though, in spite of looking for it.

Exquisitely executed (now there's a tongue-twister for you) landing gear!

- L.

PS. On a tangential issue, Till ('Gummikuh') recounted a tale about a Gloster Gladiator flying from North Africa to Britain on its lower wings only. That can't be a full and correct description. If so, the lower wings would have to be cantilever (able to carry the full weight of the aircraft in the air on their own, without any wire bracing), and that simply isn't so.

A damaged Gladiator might fly from North Africa to Britain without its top ailerons, no big problem (exactly because the return control wires for the remaining lower ailerons were already there inside the lower wing, as we discussed), and that's what I believe might have happened. But it simply cannot fly without its upper wing. And that's not an issue of wing area as much as rigidity.

Biplane wings are quite loosely hung on to the fuselage and totally dependent on the wire cross-bracing. Their weight on the ground is fully born by the landing wires from the top of the center struts to the outer end of the lower wings, most often attached to the wing spars at a point roughly coinciding with the bottom fixtures of the outer struts.

In the air the full load is carried by the flying wires, which run from the upper wing spars, most often close to where the outer struts are attached, to the lower end of the fuselage or lower wing spars, often roughly coinciding with the lower wing attachement points.

The lifting force of both wings are born by the flying wires, which is why they often are doubled (like the Gladiator's), as opposed to the landing wires which most often are single (like the Gladiator's). The lifting force of specifically the lower wing is carried by the flying wires by way of the outer struts (which "pushes" upwards, and are restrained by the flying wires, so to speak).

So if there were no upper wings, there had to be something in their place to keep the outer struts in place and enable the cross-bracing of the wires. Otherwise it would be totally impossible to maintain the stability of the remaining lower wing.

If a Gladiator ever did fly without its upper wing, I'd much like an explanation. The only one I can see would be provisional flying wires attached to the bottom of the landing gear, and somehow I doubt that ever took place. Can't see any good reason for doing something so preposterous.

Sorry for pontificating, but I do like getting these things right once I managed to get my own head around them at some pain.

This seems like an excellent idea. Got to remember it, for whenever I'll finally try making such fine spoked wheels. Good luck with the rest. - L.

Hello friends. About the ailerons - the connection between upper and lower ailerons for the Gladiator in fact seems to have been double wires. The inner, forward wire then seems to have worked as a return wire, eliminating the need for a connecting wire inside the full length of the top wing.

See these images, and others you may find yourself: (1) (2) (3) (4)

Other biplane aileron rigging schemes are with a stiff connecting rod, like you have suggested, or - more commonly - by a return wire running inside the top wing, connecting the two upper ailerons.

The aileron wiring then would form a closed loop with the pilot's control stick at the lower centre.

This is also how an high-winged aircraft like the Piper Cub is rigged.

In the case of the Gladiator, the wires form a closed loop as well, but it seems to run only through the lower wings with a small detour up to the top ailerons and immediately back down again. This is uncommon, and it was interesting to come across it.

JC, I think 0.4mm will serve you fine. The wires seem to have been quite sturdy.

Leif

This is looking so good. You should be pleased with your model, and the job you've made of it so far. Makes me happy to watch. - Leif

Oh, this is so good. What pleasure to watch!

(Wolfgang, I'm not so sure they were into safety belts in those days. Not in cars, and not in passenger aeroplanes, since that would have given the impression that they were indeed needed - which was the last thing they wanted, I can imagine. Riding an aeroplane should be like riding a car, only better. In fact, of course, it was a nauseating experience, noisy, turbulent, with a need not only for safety belts but even more so puking bags...)

Leif

So you are saying that 1-2 drops of washing-up detergent in your white glue, diluted 10 percent, will stop the glue from clogging up the thin needle, and enable you to use injection needles? That is quite ingenious. I have used plastic nozzles on injection syringes, but not the metal needles themselves. Thank you! - L.