Gloster Sea Gladiator (Halinski 1:33)

    Wow all these words concerning the aileron wires coming from people that know so much more about it then me make me wonder if I had not done better not to present the issue at all..


    But what I do know is that


    - the front wires are definitely not connected to the ailerons; pictures from the internet and also the pictures of my model show that on the lower wing there is not even the slightest doubt; for the upper wing it seems less obvious because the connection point is very close to - and perhaps even coupled with - the aileron hinge, but it is still located on the fixed part of the wing.
    - therefore only the back wires directly control the position of the ailerons, and the front wires seem indeed to be just return wires, as part of a closed wire system functioning by pulleys and wires inside the lower and (parts of) the upper wing.
    - only a very detailed diagram of the wing frames and systems (or taking a close look at the real thing in a museum or during an air show) could give a precise answer.


    .Anyway, there is still the left main gear strut that I wanted to show you:

    Hey, JC,


    no, really. It´s just that you mention all the things - letterboxslots and so on :-).
    We´re just here to see informations crystallize.
    BUt, fellow, to avoid things like this you better not start the son of a bitch second class, hehe.


    Apart from all that, the gear looks far better thand the old MM-Gladiator.


    Best regards


    Till

    Is das Kunst, oder kann das wech?

    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.

    Dear Leif,


    the tale was about a Fairey Swordfish, from Kenneth Munsons Book "Airplanes of WWII". To give a spot on the Swordfish´s abilities he wrote, that a one of these, the upper wing heavily damaged by AA, "flew back to Britain for repair practically as a Monoplane."
    Well, I don´t know, what "Practically" means, perhaps there still remained some lumps of the upper wing....???
    Strange enough this tale, but regarding that I assumed, that also for the Gladiator the upper Ailerons are not existencial for flying - as you explained too.
    Anyway, thanks again für the description of the wiring. I now understand much better the construction of my few Biplanes here.
    Don´t feel sorry about pointifications....it´s always a pleasure to read it.


    Best regards


    till


    I did some research to get an idea of these return-wires, but not succesful so far.

    Is das Kunst, oder kann das wech?

    Fascinating, this lecture about flying wires and landing wires and how they influence the stabillity and forces on the ground and in the air! So interesting, and yet so simple once you know how things work.


    And, Gummikuh, I am delighted you are using the slot of my letterbox for letters adressed to Leif =)
    -----------


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

    Quote

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


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

    Dankbar für die Gelegenheit auf Englisch schreiben zu dürfen, kann aber Antworten problemlos auf Deutsch lesen.

    Glad you like her also, Leif.


    ....tail wheel -perhaps a bit angular, but all the diagrams want it that way, maybe it was just a solid block of rubber and not a pneumatic tyre -in place.
    The tail wheel construction is much more complex than you might expect: three pieces of wire must be soldered together -and the result must be strong enough to support the weight of the tail section.

    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.

    I just found a breathtaking video of the Gladiator at an airshow, complete with music from the thirtees...:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0f5Qxp_3tI


    You remember what I told you about the airbrakes and about the 90 degree angle... well take a look at the final approach and you will see
    how perfectly it all matches with the model.
    And, yes, Wilfried, the tailwheel may be rather small and not look too solid, but I suppose it will have been firmly attached to the frame and strong enough to support the weight. And, as you can see also on this video, the tailwheel normally only touched the ground in the final phase of the landing.
    And Leif: thanks for your tailwheel comment -looks like the shape of my tailwheel is not that bad!

    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.

    Dankbar für die Gelegenheit auf Englisch schreiben zu dürfen, kann aber Antworten problemlos auf Deutsch lesen.

    Edited once, last by Leif Ohlsson ().

    Again: interesting details!
    -------------


    I added a number of details, for instance: navigation lights on upper wing tips, parts of arrester hook attachment point, and, at differents points of the nose section, the oil cooler, exhaust pipes, hatches or engine covers etc. plus the crosshair, not made out of 0,3 mm wire as prescribed, but from the very very thin copper wire that you find in electric cables. Thin as a hair, but more realistic and probably more on scale.

    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

    Dankbar für die Gelegenheit auf Englisch schreiben zu dürfen, kann aber Antworten problemlos auf Deutsch lesen.

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

    Dankbar für die Gelegenheit auf Englisch schreiben zu dürfen, kann aber Antworten problemlos auf Deutsch lesen.

    Edited once, last by Leif Ohlsson ().

    Hello Leif, Jan, (and also Gummikuh).
    I never used anything like Photoshop to change anything to my pictures! And my camera seems ok. It is all pure nature what you see.


    But what I sometimes do is to hold a normal light at a close distance over the object - especially under bad weather conditions, when there is very little daylight from outside, in order to avoid the use of a flash.


    Obviously the pictures show different stages of the build and were therefore taken at different moments; pictures number 1 and 4 were taken under the conditions I described above.

    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.

    Dankbar für die Gelegenheit auf Englisch schreiben zu dürfen, kann aber Antworten problemlos auf Deutsch lesen.

    Edited 2 times, last by Leif Ohlsson ().

    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.

    Dankbar für die Gelegenheit auf Englisch schreiben zu dürfen, kann aber Antworten problemlos auf Deutsch lesen.

    Edited 3 times, last by Leif Ohlsson ().

    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.

    Dankbar für die Gelegenheit auf Englisch schreiben zu dürfen, kann aber Antworten problemlos auf Deutsch lesen.

    Edited once, last by Leif Ohlsson ().

    Quote

    Original von Leif Ohlsson
    ...The quality of this work is a feast for the eye to behold. - L.


    Right - it looks great!

    Fertig: MS WILHELM GUSTLOFF, 1:250



    Aufwachen - es ist 5 vor 33...

    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

    @ Leif: About the six smaller wires: there is only one diagram that shows them more ore less clearly; they seem to end very close to the three larger radial bars, but without really touching them.


    Thanks for the beautiful pictures of a radial engine. Taking into account the small scale, my cardboard engine gives a pretty good impression of the ral thing.

    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?

    Thanks for your comments!
    I did not even know that there was such thing as an 'exhaust collector ring', and had been wondering where all these stubs would end, but after having read your explanation it all seems so clear: the exhaust gasses are collected all around the engine in the collector ring that leads them to two outlets at the lower side.
    And, talking about the bars: indeed, when introducing the engine inside the cowling, I can see that the three bars end against the inside of the cowling where the collector ring is located and that they must be there to hold the collector ring. (The smaller bars, by the way, end at about 3/4 of the larger ones, far from the collector ring, so I still believe they support the three large bars).


    ----
    An important hint for those who intend to build the model, or are already on the way: ring 43 h/i, at the rear end of the cowling, must only be added to the cowling after the engine has been built inside. The diameter of the ring is two small to let the engine pass (at least, in my model); so, to avoid a small disaster, add it only after everything is in place!

    Moin zusammen,


    Panzerchen, das ist schlüssig, doch z.B. die Bilder von Leif zeigen kupferne Farbe des Materials.
    Auch die Lysander in London ist kupferfarben.


    Deine Vermutung mit den Anlassfarben würde ich teilen, doch tippe ich eher darauf, daß manche Maschinen tatsächlich Edelstahl hatten, andere eine Legierung mit hohem Kupferanteil...


    Eine interessante Frage....



    Gruß
    Hadu

    Vielleicht kommt der Tag, an dem mehr Leute checken, dass Idiotie nicht links oder rechts ist, sondern in erster Linie daher rührt, dass jemand ein Idiot ist! (M. Tegge)




    www.modell-und-geschichte.jimdo.com


    Mitglied der Luft'46-Gang

    I follow this discussion between specialists with very much attention!
    -----
    The engine mounted inside the cowling. (On these pictures, ring 43 h/i is already in place).
    On the first picture, showing the rear of the engine, the two exhausts (that will be much longer) are clearly visible.
    On the second picture, visible at the lower left and right inside of the cowling, the two exhausts attached to the collector ring.
    Third picture: a general aspect of the frontside of the engine and cowling:

    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.

    Dankbar für die Gelegenheit auf Englisch schreiben zu dürfen, kann aber Antworten problemlos auf Deutsch lesen.

    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

    Dankbar für die Gelegenheit auf Englisch schreiben zu dürfen, kann aber Antworten problemlos auf Deutsch lesen.

    Hi JC,
    Wiesel and I were just drooling over this Halinski magazine (and a decent beer) and we just realized how small this model actually is. Can you add a hand in the next photo as a reference for the guys to see this?


    Cheers
    Jan

    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]: