vossiewulf

I figured you would have just worked from M. Boudriot's careful calculations of the amounts of wood of various types required. At least I remember him having good data for wood quantities, it's not something I look up on a regular basis. Although you're working at furniture scale, the easy calculations we use doing that wouldn't apply to an object where um, maybe 20%-30% of its internal volume is more wood structure in zillions of separate pieces, so I like your method of working off the volume.

In general there are many build logs and also many people who get started but never go beyond that. Add the fact that yes there is a bias for military vessels, and you're not going to have lots of people visiting right at the beginning. But if you keep going, people like Michael and Nils will find you and other people will see you're sticking with it and decide it's worth following along. So I think you'll find it worth it to keep taking those photos and posting them. Also, look around for other similar builds and stop by and say hi. And have a link to your build log in your sig. Lots of people don't have time to do lots of build log searching but they'll notice something waved around in front of them.
 
You already have people here very much worth having available to answer questions, look at some of their builds if you want an instant fit of jealousy  Or you just wait for Keith to post a pic of insanely nice little lathe. I'll be growing up next to Michael on the watchmaker life path next time around.
 

Very nice and straight and aligned, that's a very good start, looking around its surprising how little attention some people put to this crucial step. Making sure everything is aligned right at the beginning means everything else will go on without any gymnastics.

In general there are many build logs and also many people who get started but never go beyond that. Add the fact that yes there is a bias for military vessels, and you're not going to have lots of people visiting right at the beginning. But if you keep going, people like Michael and Nils will find you and other people will see you're sticking with it and decide it's worth following along. So I think you'll find it worth it to keep taking those photos and posting them. Also, look around for other similar builds and stop by and say hi. And have a link to your build log in your sig. Lots of people don't have time to do lots of build log searching but they'll notice something waved around in front of them.
 
You already have people here very much worth having available to answer questions, look at some of their builds if you want an instant fit of jealousy  Or you just wait for Keith to post a pic of insanely nice little lathe. I'll be growing up next to Michael on the watchmaker life path next time around.
 

We're going to need more boxes.

There are a couple hundred pitfalls you can drop into that are basically invisible until you've fallen into them, so don't get down, you fix whatever you need to and move on a bit wiser in the ways of building ships.
 
When it comes to gluing a piece back that has broken off, drill a small hole on each side and glue in a small dowel at the same time you glue the two pieces back together. It will make the joint much stronger. So one thing you definitely need is a set of small drill bits and a pin vise to hold them for drilling holes.

I'm wondering if anyone ever figured out how to do the green paint/orange paint switch
 
Ok one step forward, this was one of the screwdriver sharpeners I bought for experimentation, it's $8.95 on EBay and if nothing else, these will provide perfect sharpening for the straight chisels.
 
It is just a mild steel axle between two unsealed bearings with an outer size that doesn't make sense in any measurement system, 1.025"/26.05mm.
 
However, putting a straight chisel in up to the ferrule through the hole in the axle results in an angle just a little more than 25 degrees, I'm guessing 27 and the screw holds the chisel firmly. I think somewhere in the 22mm to 24mm range for the outer diameter of the bearings would give 25 degrees with the hole cut through the axis center.
 



I figured out that I needed to keep my finger even closer to the edge than that, because even at that distance the tool was bending and giving very slightly uneven results that got better once I had my finger literally on the cutting edge, so I was sharpening my fingertip too.
 
But once I understood that it went quickly, it works fine, just would be much nicer if we had a weight keeping consistent pressure instead of trying to do so with our hands. Bevel is straight and flat and it's sharp enough to pass the basswood end grain test, all cut cleanly.



 
 
 
 
 

Thank you Alexander, I think I followed that, and I will try it - I mean the making of eyes. I understand what you mean about no protrusion of the lower edge of the semicircle gouges.
 
Below are some photos of various jigs for sharpening gravers. These are what I have been looking at while thinking about making jigs for Mikhail's tools. As you see, a jig for the straight chisels should be very simple. With a little added complexity, it could handle the straight and skew chisels. This is what I intend to make first, I have some 1/4" ball bearings sitting around that are a good size.
 
For the semicircular gouges, I am still thinking. Basically the idea is that the jig axle and the piece that holds the gouge are geared together such that as the jig rolls forward, the piece that is holding the gouge turns along its long axis. I think that will work but I'm not completely sure.
 
This is the "Crocker Pattern" graver sharpener. They are made by many companies. I don't think they'll work without significant modification or making Mikhail's tools separate from the handles.

This is a Bergeon 2461, not expensive, I ordered one to try it. It's for sharpening screwdrivers.

 
This is a Bergeon 2462 graver sharpener, fairly expensive for what it is, not sure if I will try it.

All brass version.

 
This is a very cheap graver sharpener you can find all over EBay and any jewelry or watch making supply companies.

 
This is one guy's home-made jig. I like it.


 
Another home-made jig. More sturdy but only good for one sharpening angle.

 
And a seriously cheap and easy home-made jig

Alexander, yet another thanks for the clear explanation of how you work. I'm hitting myself in the forehead, I have many diamond points for rotary tools, but I never thought of using them in a pin vise.
 
Also, now I have to get a set of those carving tools too. Sigh.
 
I'm just starting with ships, haven't yet carved a figurehead, but I have considerable experience with chip carving.
 

 
 
I also have made some of my own tools, this is my general-use knife, it has a blade Ron Hock of Hock Tools made for me, wenge wood handle, and a brass balance piece that I turned on my little lathe.
 

 
 
And this is my X-acto replacement. I have a clear design in my head for a v2 that I want to try to talk Ron Hock into making and selling, basically a quick-change knife like an X-acto but with much heavier blades in various shapes made by Ron Hock, intended to be sharpened and should last for years.
 

 
 

To return to another point of yours, how thin the blade is definitely matters, but it also matters in how often it needs to be sharpened and how strong that edge is. If you're making straight cuts and don't mind sharpening often, I long since had reached the same conclusion as you where the sharpest blade is achieved when each side of the blade is a whole bevel. I've been sharpening my detail/chip carving knives that way for a long time now, and I carved 90% of the chip carving below with a Hock detail knife sharpened that way.
 
The disadvantages are weakness under any twisting load, they have to be sharpened often, and sharpening takes much longer because you're hitting so much metal. Most of the knives I use for ship work aren't sharpened that way, they still have a big bevel but not the whole side of the blade. For me the only time the performance vs. drawbacks is positive is when I'm chip carving where you need well more than scalpel sharpness.
 
 

I did the 3 inch Ordnance Rifle in this series a few years ago, I was very frustrated with the poor surface quality of the white metal castings and replaced the cheeks and axle with my parts, and sanded/filed down all the surfaces of the wheels and trail and then re-engraved the wood pattern. Thankfully yours appear to be considerably better than what I received, but I still am baffled as to why they don't use resin with its far, far better castings surfaces.
 
 

My recommendation is finish sand the piece of wood, and either use Indian ink directly, or an Indian ink marker (artist supply stores have them, most "black" markers are actually dark purple). Both will penetrate the wood and leave the wood texture totally exposed, so it looks like the wood is black and not painted.

One thing to consider with handles Gaetan is how well it locates the point of the blade and its rotation for you. A curved and fully rounded handle can be quite comfortable, but it's hard to know exactly where the point is just by the grip. That's why I always make the back edge of the handle straight, and perfectly in line with the point of the blade, and also with slight flats on the side, these help you intuitively feel where the edge is pointed. With a fully rounded handle, you can be holding the knife slightly twisted in your hand without noticing.
 
But in the end, handles are very personal things, make what feels right for you.

She should be very pretty with the radical French hull form. Wasn't this one of the non-Sané designs? I seem to remember there was one guy who particularly favored the angular hull forms. I have Boudriot's book on French frigates, I should go look it up.

The way to avoid that problem is to build the wings and tails over the plans, that is what I have always done. Tape plans or a copy of them to your building board taut and flat, repeat with some plastic wrap over top to prevent any problems with glue sticking to plans, pin or clamp spars in the correct place and off you go. No way to have a problem unless the plans themselves are wrong.
 
Andrew, I recommend you contact Model Expo, they have a free replacement for broken/missing parts policy. I cannot see any reasonable way to fix what you have or use it in the finished model as is - explain to them what happened and see if you can get replacement parts for the wooden parts of the top wing.

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/

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!"

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.

Ok I had to look that up and yes in fact "semester" in Swedish means "holiday". Swedish students going to college in the US must have an amusing time scheduling brutal classes for their first and second "holidays" each year
 

Worse than the pushrods- those could be fixed without too much pain- are the exhausts. In the 9J they go to the back half of the crankcase, and I think the 9j has a larger-diameter crankcase too that provides a bit more room for the exhaust, and to make those you need to make a blank with baking clay and then carve it down into a master for casting. Much better plan to wait and get a real 110.

That's all standard 3d printing stuff, there are multiple packages designed specifically to set up a model for 3d printing with the appropriate supports and orientation and they check minimum feature size. The latter you have to check and know before you begin modeling, you can't just model whatever and expect it to 3d print at any scale. You have to plan for and create different versions of your models at various scales as the minimum feature size shrinks relative to the size of the model as you go up in scale.
 
None of them are insurmountable, but it's also something unlikely to be navigated by someone who is not a very experienced modeler. Once I get my desktop up and running again I plan to work on printing some of my work through Shapeways and maybe offering some models useful to people here and in other (physical) modeling areas, I'll let folks know what I learn.

I think I may have made you aware of it and that it's THE book to have for building Dr.I models, but it was Ron Thibault who saw that they were in stock again and pointed that out. Thank him for continuing to check
 

I understand Tor, I got halfway through an Alb. D.V before it got killed in a move and I decided not to re-try as they are just not that great kits and even someone just trying to build something reasonably good out of the box has problems, as you have had.
 
The up side (which is pretty big) is no one offers anything like it. But they've always looked like airplane models designed by ship modelers who don't know much about flying and they would do themselves a big favor by hiring an experienced RC aircraft designer to redo them for higher accuracy. Then there is the inexplicable obsession with white metal, it's inexplicable as you can see the masters were reasonably good, so if they'd just taken that master and cast the part in resin it would have looked nice and been easy to work with if you want to add detail. Instead they use white metal and it's pitted and bumps are everywhere and they take a ton of effort just to get in basically usable state.
 
But I doubt they have much impetus to do a redesign when no one else is competing, so there's room for someone to step in and do better.

For future reference, Micro Krystal Clear is made to do glass for instruments (on larger scales) and windows (smaller scales), and works pretty well.

Congrats Tor, glad you are very happy with it, that's the only thing that's important in the end.