Fabric weave

Hello!

So to say, it's a victory of a convention - what we have here is a conventional depiction of something. It's a bit like opera - we don't sing all the time while talking, yet people pay good money to see that on stage :D

Luckily here you can sand it down. More contact with the real thing would also help many modellers.

Good luck with your builds and have a nice day

Paweł

Precisely right, Don, even though fabric was in use the weave was mostly concealed by dope, primer and paint. The only noticable issue with fabric control surfaces, was the gloss difference between the metal structure and the painted fabric.

Even the very low cost private airplanes, like the Piper Colt and Citabria, were completely smooth and shiny. When I paint something in a NMF like the B-17 or B-29, at the last step I just mask around the control surfaces, then spray then with a really thinned light coat of semi gloss, to differentiate for a small contrast.

If the replication of fabric is grossly overdone on a kit, I just use some primer and sand it smooth before painting.

Patrick 

Interesting.  Care to comment about 4 & 5 color lozenge camouflage that was printed in the weave at the factory?  You do know that the Allied thread count per inch was about 96 thread per sqaure inch,  but the German averaged 47-63 thread per square inch.  The Germans made up the coverage by running the finished bolts through steam heated rollers to crush the cross section of the threads.  It was termed in the English translation as "calendering."  One further note of comment.  Did you know that the factory bolt width of the 4 color was shorter than the 5 color.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.475647815908556.1073741832.394338610706144&type=3

I agree that it is totally overdone Don, aswell as on panel and fastnre detail...BUT without some "too much" our models will look very plastic toy like :-(

The place where they really overdo the detail is on the ribtaped and re-enforcing taped under it on controll surfaces, even on my 1/32 Tam P-51 on the rudder it looks wrong

Here is a J-3 I just rebuilt and it ilustrates Don's point very nicely. Even from about 6' away you really need to look closely to see any weave.

Theuns

 

The place where they really overdo the detail is on the ribtaped and re-enforcing taped under it on controll surfaces, even on my 1/32 Tam P-51 on the rudder it looks wrong

 

True.

Another place where some mfgs overdo it is the sag between ribs.  In pre-ww1 and even many ww1 planes there is a lot of sag.  But the mfgs soon learned to sheet the area between LE and main spar, which eliminates most of the sag.  Any plane from early twenties on should not have much sag.

Indeed. On the upper leading edge area just behind the main spar on this J-3 you might be surpriset to see the amount of indentation between the ribs. It is not so much that the fabric is loose or saggy, more that because of the airfoil shape, the taught fabric wants to take the shortest route between the ribs, therefore they installed sub-ribs between the ribs in this area.

The biggest hassle you have with loose fabric is the de-forming of the airfoil you get when the plane starts flying fast or at high angle of attack, the fabric will baloon between the ribs and cause high drag.

That concludes my boring lesson for today LOL

Theuns

This may or may not help:

A great idea for a MASSIVE PE project. Hangar One at Moffett Naval Air Station, built for the Macon.

I grew up almost in the shadow of this building.

Something I've always wondered is what distance away a scale model appears the same as the full size item much further away.  Is there a simple conversion or rule of thumb for that?  Also, like on Google Earth, what apparent altitude are the different views taken from, so for example is a 1"=1000 feet apparently taken from 10k feet, or something like that?  Could someone explain that, please?

John

Second question, I don't know.

First one, luckily it's linear because the cube volume equation takes care of itself. A 1/72 model at 3 feet is like a 1/1 subject at 216 feet.

Likewise a model I built at 1/72 sucks at 12" but is ok at 36".

Smooth as silk, um I mean glass.

The normal near focusing limit for the human eye is about 12 inches, roughly, or one foot.  If we look at a model any closer it will be out of focus (unless we are using a magnifying glass).  Since a 1:72 model is 1/72 the size of the prototype, viewing it from the nearest distance is equivalent geometrically to viewing the real thing at 72 feet.  For any scale, the closest scale viewing distance is the scale (or reciprocal of the scale) in feet.   Of course, there is no maximum scale viewing distance other than when the dot disappears :-)

If you are viewing it at any other distance, say two or three feet away, the scale viewing distance is that distance multiplied by the scale.

Must agree Don, We have been blessed with a number of things,in our Hobby, We must be careful what we wish for!

I've been complaining about the representation of cloth surfaces on plastic aircraft models for years - now I just sand the surfaces smooth, paint 'em and move on to the next problem.