• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About vossiewulf

  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    San Mateo CA
  • Interests
    Everything. Mostly.

Profile Fields

  • Full NRG Member?
    MSW Member

Recent Profile Visitors

661 profile views
  1. Not sure what you guys are talking about, sanding sealer is just a standard clear lacquer/varnish/poly with a high percentage of solids. As such, once applied, the strength of any glue bond you get is (depending on finish thickness) mostly or entirely limited to the strength of the finish's adherence to the wood, which is always going to be MUCH less than that of glue bonding with wood. In some cases with thin CA and a light coat of sealer you'll still get a semi-strong bond as the glue sinks into still-open grain and that creates a mechanical hold, but it's still not going to be as strong as it should be bonding with plain wood. I almost never do that, I will remove any finish including sanding sealer from a surface before gluing. Anyone who wants to really understand what all these finishes really are and the basic chemistry of how they work should read Understanding Wood Finishing: How to Select and Apply the Right Finish, it's about the most advanced finishing book I've found in terms of explaining all the source materials of finishes and how/why they work the way they do. You'll learn that much of what you think you know is wrong and that much of what manufacturers say about their finishes is complete nonsense, but other info on the can that you're not really paying attention to now is very important and will tell you exactly how that finish will behave. It's from American Woodworker which I normally don't associate with highly technical woodworking (like Fine Woodworking) but this really is the best book I've found, and I probably have 15 or 20 books on different types of finishing.
  2. This is just my 4 year old Samsung S4 phone camera with no special lens. Decent phone cameras work just fine for these purposes, only requirement is lots and lots of light- they all seem to perform much better under very bright lighting conditions, including a reduction in noise. That's the only caveat really, they take noisy photos. But if that concerns you, Photoshop + one of several specialist noise-reduction filters and it's all gone. Take this one to full size and check out the detail in the amboyna burl.
  3. Plastic small scale: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/forum/59-aircraft-modeling-forums/ http://cs.finescale.com/f/ RC aircraft: https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/index.php http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/rc-airplanes-226/
  4. The only caveat about these tools if you need to know how to sharpen tools pretty well, they're not easy to sharpen while keeping the bevels flat, especially the very tiny spoon gouges.
  5. I sent adrian contact info BTW in case no one else did.
  6. BTW the sponge eye makeup brushes worked extremely well for India ink. And in fact since they leave no brush marks at all, I'm going to try using them for non-precision hand-painting, looks to me like they will leave very flat coats in about any brushable liquid paint/dye.
  7. No way to tell what it is with that small image. But short version is if it has some lighter creamy streaks and feels like cutting sandstone with an edge tool, it's probably real ebony. If not, it's just one of many species that can be "ebonized" or dyed black, but I've never been certain what they use. But it goes all the way through solid black everywhere so I assume real dye and soaked in said dye for a long time.
  8. Make sure you check out Uschi's metal powder offerings, those kits are perfect applications for them. They are actually quite easy to use and can produce metal finishes that are exceptionally realistic. This one shows off some of his leather decals and wood paints/decals. Note both of these show a Mercedes D.IIIa/au engine as used by the Albatrosen and early Fokker D.VIIs And here's a guy doing a terrible job of using them on your 80hp Le Rhone kit, rough sanded with no undercoat and it still looks pretty good. The only downside is metal finishes like this are the least forgiving in existence, and in fact if you had a need to find every single scratch on a surface down to near atomic levels, rub some metal powder on and you can see them pretty easily. It's not quite that bad of course but you get the point, best results will be to use the same undercoats he recommends on a surface that's been sanded/polished to the highest grit you can stand. Novus Plastic Polish works very well here, you sand to maybe 1200/1500 and the #2 fine scratch remover will take out all of those scratches and leave you with a glass finish and can be done by hand but felt points of various shapes for your rotary tool can help speed up things considerably. This is a glider I made painted Tamiya flat black and rubbed over with one of the powders. Tragically, being made of balsa, it moved way too much and the finish got all wrinkled a few months later. So not recommended over wood.
  9. Just make sure you have some of the thin sanding film that can be creased really sharply, best thing I've found for hitting both sides of the eleventy thousand cooling fin seams to make them as invisible as possible. The fit should be good but if you get lots of squeezeout or empty seams... think of an old salt squinting and shaking his pipe at you while saying "give up on perfection now boy, for that way lies death. Death... and MADNESS!"
  10. Thanks CDW! Hopefully people see that nothing I did should be beyond a decently-equipped shipbuilder's workshop, at least to create a basic knife - the brass balance pieces I make for my knives are in no way required, so no need for a lathe for someone to make a knife for themselves. The wood part everyone here should be able to make easily, and the finish is just thin CA glue that we all have on our benches. That was the purpose of documenting making making those, to show people that if you have a bench grinder and standard ship modeler tools and equipment, you can do it too and in most cases make something much better than you can buy for maybe $10-$20 in materials. I know I can make a pretty knife if I want to, I don't need a bunch of pics to remind me
  11. For anyone who has ever considered making their own knives with custom blade shapes, I just did this and the full walkthrough on how I did is in my build log starting here. I decided I wanted paired single-bevel knives for employment in the planking method I'm using; I have lots and lots of experience using knives for precision purposes. That said, if you like my planking results you can use the same method without doing the trimming via knife the way I do it, or at least not use them to trim quite as close to the mark as I do. Single-bevel knives for me immediately bring to mind Japanese marking knives. In traditional Japanese joinery these make not just a mark to cut to, their "marks" are actually the visible edge of the joint. So they are made single-bevel with the perfectly-flat back of the knife going against the ruler with the bevel facing the waste part that will be removed, and they are made in pairs so you can make the proper marks in both directions if needed. And as is usual for Japanese knives, there is only a thin strip of very high-carbon cutting edge steel that is welded to very low-carbon steel or in some cases even plain iron to provide flexibility, and as a result the cutting edge steel can be extremely hard, typically Rc63-64. And that means they can be made extremely sharp and the edge will hold for a long time. So I bought a pair of 1/2" wide marking knives from Japan Woodworker, I knew the steel quality would be very good even on a mid-price marking knife, and they were $22 each. If you follow the tutorial also, you'll see I ended up cutting them in half as I didn't need the full length for the final knives, so in effect I'm going to get two knives out of each of those $22 blades. Blanks for the handles can be easily had by buying pen blanks use by pen makers, and you can get extremely nice wood for this purpose for $5-$10. In my case I used a single $10 amboyna burl piece glued to 1/16" castello boxwood sheet pieces to provide extra strength - you'll want to do something similar if you go with burl wood for the outer handle parts as all burl wood is inherently weak with lots of short grain no matter which way you cut it. I also mitigate that weakness by soaking the handles for an hour at least in thin CA glue, which penetrates deeply and turns the whole thing into a composite material with considerable strength. This is how I will be using the knives, one for each cutting direction to ensure the cut on the work side leaves a perfectly flat and vertical surface for the next plank (after a bit of sanding to finalize) - the method I'm using is to do the taper and beveling one the plank is already glued on the ship. And this is the result so far. In any case, this is what I started with - And that was a mistake, at least on the width - I bought 1/2" knives when I really needed no more than 1/4". This led to lots of grinding I shouldn't have needed to do. And this is the final result, a pair of amboyna burl pen-handled single bevel knives that I will be using from this point forward for all planking jobs.
  12. Oh yeah the consensus at the time was the French-built engines were better so it wasn't uncommon to replace a UR.II with a Le Rhone on Dr.Is. Josef Jacobs is the only one I'm aware of that mounted a Clerget on a Dr.I. The problem wasn't just the quality of the engine build however, it was the oil, the Germans ran short of castor oil and tried all sorts of ersatz products with little success, and the engines suffered as a result. Actually if there was a severe failure by the German air industry, it was in engine development, they fell behind in 1916 and were falling farther behind at the end of the war with the allies fielding multiple fighter aircraft with 220+hp engines, with the Dolphin having a 300hp engine, while the "fast" version of Germany's top front-line fighter, the D.VII was flying with a 180hp BMW IIIa and the Albatros D.Vas were mostly still flying with the Mercedes D.III(a or au) most still developing 165hp but the aus could push it up to 185hp. Actually the Albatros D.V is a very good example, because meanwhile the Austrians had turned the earlier Albatros D.III they licensed into a MUCH better fighter than either the D.III or D.V versions the Germans flew, except for the absurd Schwarsloze MGs. Oeffag, the Austrian manufacturer, immediately realized the problem with the single spar lower wing leading to resonance and the resultant loss of the lower wing. After a bunch of German pilots were killed Albatros slapped a short strut from the wing V-strut to the lower wing leading edge which helped, but the German Albatrosen were never good divers, you could only push that lower wing so far. The Oeffag engineers instead redsigned the lower wing with two spars, redesigned the lower part of the v-struts and their mounting, and the OEF aircraft never had that resonance and could be dived much harder. The lowest hp engines the Austrians used was the 185hp Daimler-Benz, the other two Albatros series they built had the 200hp and 225hp Daimler-Benz engines. Then they realized the plane was faster without its spinner, something that wasn't too hard to verify since the one thing OEF engineers couldn't do was keep their spinners from falling off the plane in flight. So they redesigned the forward fuselage into a simple rounded shape, and got another 9mph increase. I've often wondered how the Western Front might have played out different had Albatros dumped their D.V and built the OEF D.IIIs instead. Series 253 OEF Albatros D.III with redesigned forward fuselage and 225hp Daimler Benz, probably 30mph faster than the Albatros D.Va.
  13. There were several Camel engines, from Le Rhone and Clerget and Bentley, and they all flew a bit differently. Josef Jacobs, the German ace who flew the Dr.I longer than anyone preferred the Clerget, and provided rewards to front-line troops who let him know about downed Clerget Camels with undamaged engines. Most of the other information I have says the Bentley Br.I versions were the best, with a nominal 150hp, with Clerget having a nominal 130hp, but only the RNAS used Bentley-powered Camels. Also your Dr.I book should provide lots of detail reference pics. I need to find someone who knows the whole story, but I'm a bit confused by it; one the one hand Oberursel signed a license agreement with Gnome/Le Rhone in 1914 (who thought that was a good idea in France also?) that included the "lambda" 9 cylinder engine, Oberursel didn't begin design and development on it until 1917 and Le Rhone maybe in 1916? So I'm confused by the fact that I can't find any reference to any differences between the 9J and the UR.II, everything I can find says they're identical engines, and that makes no sense as no engine ever survived the transition from design drawings to working engines without changes. And I also can't find any information saying Oberursel copied captured 9Js, what I do have says their design engineers started building prototypes in 1917 and they went through an independent development and testing process before Idflieg certified it for production.
  14. Despite that limitation, your ships all look very good, neat and clean. I assume you mean that very small pieces and details are difficult. Have you tried a magnifying headset like the Carson one below? I like it because you can wear your normal glasses underneath them and just flip down the magnifying lenses when you need them. I've been using mine for several months now and really like how well they work, and the LED light on top works well too.