Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sounds like you are making good progress, Sir!

Do not worry too much about the thinned fuselage halves. Your structural framework will actually add a good deal of solidity to the pieces once the thing is assembled.

If you try something like this in future, too, remember you can sand the outside of the interior frame as well as the fuselage halves. These can be a bit thin without it bothering the eye at all.

Edited by Old Man
Link to post
Share on other sites
If you try something like this in future, too, remember you can sand the outside of the interior frame as well as the fuselage halves. These can be a bit thin without it bothering the eye at all.

Thanks for the tip Old Man!

I suspect I will have to sand the outer edge of this interior frame again after the wood grain attempt...

I have not managed to find time to get to the LHS early enough to get my oil paints, so I have been reading up on rotary engines…

There seems to be more than one type of rotary engine used on the Nieuport 17s. I know most Ni-17s are powered by Le Rhone (I think RFC’s Ni-17s are powered by a mix of Clerget and Le Rhone though).

But, there are two versions of the Le Rhone Rotary Engines - Model 9C rated at 90hp and Model 9J rated at 110hp. I wonder whether there is a reliable way to find out which airframe (via manufacturer serial number) had which version of the Le Rhone, because the Model 9C and Model 9J looked rather different.

There was some discussion of the apparent confusion about reverse mounting the Le Rhone engine at slick95’s 1/48 Eduard Fokker Dr.1 Tri-plane build earlier. I think part of the confusion was caused by the Model 9C and Model 9J looking quite different.

The copper induction tubes enters the crankcase of each cylinder in different places on the 80hp and 110hp versions – Model 9C had the copper tubes entering the crankcase forward of the vertical centerline of each cylinder, while Model 9J had the tubes entering the crankcase behind the cylinder's centerline. This resulted in the 80 hp version's copper intake plumbing being "visible" from the front (as in the Le Rhone used on the Fokker Dr.1 slick95 was building), while the 110 hp version had its copper intake tubes partially "hidden" behind the cylinders (as in Mark Miller's excellent rendering of the Le Rhone used on the Nieuport 17).

Giles

Link to post
Share on other sites

You would want the 9J 110hp motor, Sir, for a Nieuport 17. It was designed around that motor. to fix problems encountered with the 16, which was simply the original 'Bebe' with the 80hp motor replaced by the more powerful one, which gave it decidedly cranky flying characteristics along with better speed and climb. I suppose 17s in training units later may have been fitted with the lower power motor, but it would not have been seen in front-line escadrilles. There was a sort of hybrid model (the N.21, if recollection serves), which had the fuselage and motor of the Bebe, but the wings of the 17, and some of these were employed in front line service.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You would want the 9J 110hp motor, Sir, for a Nieuport 17.

Thanks Old Man!

You are right as usual!

The standard Ni-17 (in French service at least) is issued with the 110hp Le Rhone Model 9J.

I have just read the Windsock Datafile that I had not looked into earlier - it is not really that useless!

The Ni-16 is indeed a "supercharged" 'Bebe' (Ni-11) with a heavier and more powerful rotary engine giving it "decidedly cranky" flying characteristics.

The Ni-17 is the "refinement" of the Ni-16.

The Ni-17bis flown by RFC used the Clerget rotary engine.

"Derated" Ni-17 (resulting possibly from the scarcity of 110 hp engines) may have been used in rear area training units. This may be a seperate model from the Ni-21 designation (which is in essence a Ni-17 airframe with the 80hp Le Rhone Model 9C).

Finally, there is the Ni-23 (including the sole surviving original airframe in Belgium) that used a 120hp Le Rhone Model 9Jb.

Giles

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 17bis, Sir, was the first of the 'fleshed out' Nieuports, with a rounded section given to the fuselage by light stringers, in the hope the bit of streamlining would improve speed. It is a 'look' I like a good deal, though the machines did not perform all that well, and were in production only because the supply of SPAD fighters remained inadequate. When I get the Morane Biplane done, I intend to convert an Eduard N.17 into one of these, an N.27, the last of the Nieuport vee-strut line.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally managed to get a tube of Burnt Sienna before the LHS shut its doors today :D

I can say that I am fairly satisfied with my first attempt, althought I doubt I will take up carpentry as a hobby soon :lol:. The effect I achieved is not as nice as some of the others shown here but it will do for the first try. I might re-do some of the graining later.

Unfortunately, I am unable to get photobucket to work properly :coolio:, otherwise I would show you my broken (lost count of the number of times this happened) frame...

I found that a toothbrush works pretty well in this (1/32) scale. A stiff bristled paint brush gives a more subtle effect though, but the cheapo brush I bought (together with the tube of Burnt Sienna) sheds bristles like a moulting animal. I ended up using another brush that gave an effect that is too subtle on the wooden props... may be I'll stick to my story that the Nieuport prop was made of hard wood with very tight grain :D.

Giles

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are the photos.

IMG_5942.jpg

I can say that I am fairly satisfied with my evening's dabbling in Burnt Sienna :lol: , although I am most certainly not so pleased about the broken (yet again) :worship: frame.

IMG_5943.jpg

After the lacquer base coat (Tamiya TS-68 Wooden Deck Tan), I rubbed (very thin layer) the Burnt Sienna on with plain old facial tissue. I first started with a toothbrush - I thought it works pretty well in this (1/32) scale. Next, I went over the toothbrushed patch with a stiff bristled paint brush to give a more subtle effect.

IMG_5944.jpg

You can see some blemishes in this close up. I did not bother to clean it and re-do. The part in front is due to the uneven scrapping of the pastic to fit the interior frame... I guess real wood has blemishes as well :D .

I was only able to use this method to finish the interior (frame, seat, rudder rest, etc). The cheapo brush I bought sheds bristles like a moulting animal. I ended up using another softer brush that gave an effect that is just a touch too subtle for my liking for the rest. You can see the lighter tone on the wooden props and the inter-wing V-struts in the first photo.

Oh, well, I guess I can always go through with a second round after this has dried. good thing I am traveling tonight... the bits have one whole week to dry up before I get back.

Giles

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I am back from another round of traveling.

The first round of wood grain painting has totally dried, so I painted a second round of Burnt Sienna on the prop. Actually, the second coating didn't make the prop look that much darker... arguably you could say the resultant colour "had more depth" :) Whatever that meant, I was rather disappointed... so I left the lighter tone alone on the inter-wing V-struts.

I did some work yesterday and earlier today on the wings.

Here are some photos.

uphillsanddowndales.jpg

originallowerwings.jpg

The original wings had ribs that seemed "a tad too obvious". I didn't like it all that much. YMMV.

surfacedlowerwings.jpg

I coated the two sides adjoining the over scaled ribs with Mr Surfacer. The idea is to sand down the kit's overstated ribs and even out the edges of the Mr Surfacer...

correctedwingslooktautnow.jpg

This is how it looked like after sanding... You actually can't see much from my crappy photo. I also sanded the unsurfaced (between the ribs) areas. I can verify that the end result was totally worth the time and effort :thumbsup: In the end, I managed a taut undulating contour - scale correct for a stretched and doped fabric over the internal ribbings. But, you'd probably have to run your finger over the wing surface to actually appreciate it...

Next, I am going to attempt to cut out the central (wing root) portion of the upper wings to replicate the transparent over wing panels... The Windsock Datafile actually came in handy - the pictures within confirmed that N1831 was one of the airframes fitted with the transparent over wing panels.

Giles, the fearless (ignorantly so before the big fall) biplane newbie :thumbsup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...