Colorado, United States
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
AeroScale: 11,011 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - 04:57 PM UTC
As a model, it has been a favorite subject for decades. In this case I will discuss the Roden 1:32 Sopwith Triplane kit #609. In the hands of England’s Naval Aviators the unconventional Sopwith Triplane was to prove itself well in the hostile skies of 1917. As a model, it has been a favorite subject for decades. Now Roden has come to us with a very versitile kit. You can build either the single or two gunned version from this all plastic kit. Even at this writing there is a build taking place in the Early Aviation forum. The variations and the chosen schemes make this a great kit to sink your teeth into.
Link to ItemIf you have comments or questions please post them here.
Thanks!
". . .The most important thing is to know why you build and then get the most that you can out of building." via D.D.
Washington, United States
Joined: February 17, 2009
KitMaker: 57 posts
AeroScale: 56 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - 07:44 PM UTC
Good persons,
Since the first time I saw the sprue shots of this model I must admit that I am somewhat bummed that the 'early' type tailplanes were not included in the kit. Personally, I think it makes the tripehound just that much more attractive a subject. Purely an esthetic choice, eh?
Here is an image from the fiddelers green web site of what I mean:
Mike the modelhound in Bellingham, WA 98226
Mike the modelhound in Bellingham, WA USA
"No man is so hated as he who will drive the speed limit."
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
AeroScale: 11,011 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - 09:30 PM UTC
No worries Mike. I hear an aftermarket set is a brewin.
". . .The most important thing is to know why you build and then get the most that you can out of building." via D.D.
Washington, United States
Joined: February 17, 2009
KitMaker: 57 posts
AeroScale: 56 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 - 01:02 PM UTC
Quoted Text
No worries Mike. I hear an aftermarket set is a brewin.
I like to worry. It gives my face character, or so they say. Besides, i don't want to have to buy some aftermarket tailplane. The kit should have supplied this, or at the least maybe a later release with a re-tooled part..
If push comes to shove, I will scratch build the durn early style tailplane.
Mike the old fashion modeler.
Mike the modelhound in Bellingham, WA USA
"No man is so hated as he who will drive the speed limit."
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
AeroScale: 11,011 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 14, 2010 - 02:55 PM UTC
I remember back in my younger days ( and when my eyes would focus on their own ) that I backdated a 1:72 Revell Sopwith Triplane by adding an Airfix Sopwith Pup horizontal tail. Then when Eduard came out with their 1:48 version it came with the early horizontal tail unit but a resin one started showing up in all subsequent issues.
Maybe you could do up a resin version of the WNW Pup - Horizontal tail to back date the Roden Triplane?
". . .The most important thing is to know why you build and then get the most that you can out of building." via D.D.
Wellington, New Zealand
Joined: November 04, 2008
KitMaker: 123 posts
AeroScale: 122 posts
Posted: Friday, October 15, 2010 - 07:09 AM UTC
Stephen
How does the kit work out for dimensional accuracy?
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
AeroScale: 11,011 posts
Posted: Friday, October 15, 2010 - 04:32 PM UTC
Greeting Jamo_Kiwi,
I have been working on that for the passed day or so. Remembering the Roden Oberursel I wanted to start with the engine. At first I thought the Clerget was undersized. Note the lip of the firewall on Lars' build from his build thread.
Of nescessity we all know the need for solid glueing surfaces. Just like others Roden has gone with a bit of a compromise. While all of the engine detail is there, the cylinders are minutely short to compromise for the thickness of the inside walls of the plastic cowling.
I haven't finished converting the deminsions to 1:1 scale. I have had some 1:48 drawings pumped up to 1:32 and will be making a comparison. I wish MerlinV were here. He has helped me out with these scale issues before. But I have a call in to Burl Burlingame for his input. The short of it is that I have not run into any problems yet. There are one or two concerns I have but I'll hold off commenting until I check some of my notes.
Note also that Lars has done some extended work on the cowling in adding an inner ring of plastic . I'll let him comment on that but there is a modification there. More later as I come to it.
". . .The most important thing is to know why you build and then get the most that you can out of building." via D.D.
Wellington, New Zealand
Joined: November 04, 2008
KitMaker: 123 posts
AeroScale: 122 posts
Posted: Friday, October 15, 2010 - 07:20 PM UTC
Yes I guess that is tricky without some 1/32 plans to hand. Should be easy enlarging 1/48 plans but then you'd need to measure them to check that the photocopier behaved itself properly.
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
AeroScale: 11,011 posts
Posted: Saturday, October 16, 2010 - 03:54 PM UTC
Going strictly by the numbers;
Span = 26 ' 6".
Length = 18' 10".
Height = 10' 6".
Chord ( production a/c) = 3' 3".
Gap total = 3'.
Stagger = 3'.
Dihedral = 2 degrees 30 minutes.
Incidence = 2 degrees.
Wheel track 5' 6".
These are the numbers that need to be converted to 1:32.
". . .The most important thing is to know why you build and then get the most that you can out of building." via D.D.
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
AeroScale: 11,011 posts
Posted: Saturday, October 16, 2010 - 06:00 PM UTC
Also here is a bit of fun on the instrument placement.
Upper left a rev counter (tachometer). Beside this is the leading magneto switch, and below that is the trailing magneto switch, center bottom is the altimeter, and what looks like an panel mounted selector switch. Then pulsometer at the panel’s far lower left corner.
Top dead center compass and inclinometer, middle center manufacturer’s nameplate on the bottom is air pressure gauge and relief valve.
At right speedometer and the watch.
". . .The most important thing is to know why you build and then get the most that you can out of building." via D.D.
Wellington, New Zealand
Joined: November 04, 2008
KitMaker: 123 posts
AeroScale: 122 posts
Posted: Sunday, October 17, 2010 - 07:09 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Going strictly by the numbers;
Span = 26 ' 6".
Length = 18' 10".
Height = 10' 6".
Chord ( production a/c) = 3' 3".
Gap total = 3'.
Stagger = 3'.
Dihedral = 2 degrees 30 minutes.
Incidence = 2 degrees.
Wheel track 5' 6".
These are the numbers that need to be converted to 1:32.
How is length normally measured? Is it from the end of the rudder to the front of the prop boss or front of the cowling?
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
AeroScale: 11,011 posts
Posted: Sunday, October 17, 2010 - 09:15 AM UTC
Quoted Text
How is length normally measured? Is it from the end of the rudder to the front of the prop boss or front of the cowling?
In most cases (unless otherwise noted) this is from the end of prop boss.
Now conversly 1:48 scale drawings can be enlarges 150% to get 1:32. Older Copiers can vary between 1 -3 %.
". . .The most important thing is to know why you build and then get the most that you can out of building." via D.D.
United States
Joined: August 04, 2010
KitMaker: 3 posts
AeroScale: 1 posts
Posted: Monday, October 18, 2010 - 07:50 AM UTC
Hello from a fellow Coloradoan,
I picked up this kit at Colpar Hobbies last Friday, and I am a bit confused by the beginning of your build review. For the price of this kit, Roden certainly should have included a better engine than the poorly fitting injection molded example that was in my kit.
Arizona, United States
Joined: December 12, 2008
KitMaker: 1,423 posts
AeroScale: 1,319 posts
Posted: Monday, October 18, 2010 - 09:23 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Hello from a fellow Coloradoan,
I picked up this kit at Colpar Hobbies last Friday, and I am a bit confused by the beginning of your build review. You mention a resin crankcase for the Clerget engine; but my example of the kit contained no resin pieces, nor does your kit contents list contain any mention of resin parts.
I re-read the article a few times, and I don't see where Stephen mentioned a resin crankcase in the kit at all. In fact in his parts summary, there is no mention of a resin crankcase.
Mark
We few, we happy few........
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
AeroScale: 11,011 posts
Posted: Monday, October 18, 2010 - 10:03 AM UTC
The kit is all plastic. By the way here is an interesting view on recent kit prices for a fellow modeler.
". . . I'd also like to put in a word of explanation here about the price increase of Roden kits. Two years ago, this kit would have sold for around US$50, rather than the $74.95 it lists at. This is due to the fact that in the last 18 months, the Russian Government ended its agreement with Ukraine to provide oil and petroleum products at previously-reduced prices following Ukraine's decision to adopt a pro-Western, independent policy and become part of NATO, rather than remain essentially part of Russia. The result has been a 150% increase in the price of all oil and petroleum-based products (like plastic) for domestic Ukrainian companies. This is not a case of Roden trying to gouge modelers. . ."
". . .The most important thing is to know why you build and then get the most that you can out of building." via D.D.
Wellington, New Zealand
Joined: November 04, 2008
KitMaker: 123 posts
AeroScale: 122 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 14, 2010 - 02:28 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Stephen
How does the kit work out for dimensional accuracy?
I have heard that the Roden kit is rather too short in the rear fuselage, from the cockpit back. This is from two different modellers. I have heard that a resin correction is being planned as the shortfall is not just a mm or two. What do you reckon Stephen?
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
AeroScale: 11,011 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 14, 2010 - 04:29 PM UTC
For 18' 10" at 1:32 = 7.0625 inches. Note! I was e-mailed this recently;
"18 feet 10 inches applies to the two prototypes, N.500 and N.504 with the 110hp Clerget. N.500 went to France for operational evals during July 1916. N.504 initially had the 110 engine but had the 130 version retrofitted in September 1916 and had the rear fuselage strengthened in October. The length for production airframes was 19 feet 6 inches.
In the Harleyford publication "Sopwith - the man and his aircraft by the late Bruce Robertson & drawings by Peter G Cooksley". Covered are lengths & dimensions of every Sopwith aircraft from 1912 to 1919."
Now if thats the case 19 feet 6 inches at 1:32 = 7.31 inches.
Larsa, since you have built one how does that hold up?
". . .The most important thing is to know why you build and then get the most that you can out of building." via D.D.
Östergötland, Sweden
Joined: April 04, 2006
KitMaker: 1,058 posts
AeroScale: 1,004 posts
Posted: Monday, November 15, 2010 - 02:23 AM UTC
Quoted Text
For 18' 10" at 1:32 = 7.0625 inches. Note! I was e-mailed this recently;
"18 feet 10 inches applies to the two prototypes, N.500 and N.504 with the 110hp Clerget. N.500 went to France for operational evals during July 1916. N.504 initially had the 110 engine but had the 130 version retrofitted in September 1916 and had the rear fuselage strengthened in October. The length for production airframes was 19 feet 6 inches.
In the Harleyford publication "Sopwith - the man and his aircraft by the late Bruce Robertson & drawings by Peter G Cooksley". Covered are lengths & dimensions of every Sopwith aircraft from 1912 to 1919."
Now if thats the case 19 feet 6 inches at 1:32 = 7.31 inches.
Larsa, since you have built one how does that hold up?
Hi
My mission was to get the kit together and find any flaws for the Swedish Distributor,so I didn´t measure it up too close. Sorry for that but it looks like a Triplane to me
I have never seen a perfect kit yet, they always trip over something
Larsa
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
AeroScale: 11,011 posts
Posted: Monday, December 27, 2010 - 08:33 PM UTC
Quoted Text
18' 10" at 1:32 = 7.0625 inches.
19 feet 6 inches at 1:32 = 7.31 inches.
with a difference of 8 inches overall.
Now these are overall measurements of the aircraft from Prop hub to rudder / elevators.
I took out a set of Central Flying School drawings of
just the fuselage and noted the distance from firewall to kingpost then I worked forward.
14' 9"= 178.85 inches to 1:32 = 5.59 inches by the Sopwith CSF drawing. These could easily have been modified at a later date as they are only CSF but it is where they started. Also references note that N.500 was tested on Dec. 7 & 9 with a 130hp Clerget. This data says that it had a overall length of 18 feet 10 inches.
Then I measured the fuselage half of the kit and worked back.
5.50 inches at 1:32 = 176 inches =
14' 7"That works out to
2.85 scale inches difference with the Roden kit having the shorter length. So to get the overall length of the kit we'll have to measure the cowl depth and the adjustable tail mechanisim joined to the rudder lengths. Maybe we can get Des to measure his build for us.
". . .The most important thing is to know why you build and then get the most that you can out of building." via D.D.
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
AeroScale: 11,011 posts
Posted: Friday, December 31, 2010 - 06:05 AM UTC
Just bringing this up for those asking about the kit fuselage length.
". . .The most important thing is to know why you build and then get the most that you can out of building." via D.D.
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
AeroScale: 11,011 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 - 09:12 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
18' 10" at 1:32 = 7.0625 inches.
19 feet 6 inches at 1:32 = 7.31 inches.
with a difference of 8 inches overall.
Now these are overall measurements of the aircraft from Prop hub to rudder / elevators.
I took out a set of Central Flying School drawings of just the fuselage and noted the distance from firewall to kingpost then I worked forward.
14' 9"= 178.85 inches to 1:32 = 5.59 inches by the Sopwith CSF drawing. These could easily have been modified at a later date as they are only CSF but it is where they started. Also references note that N.500 was tested on Dec. 7 & 9 with a 130hp Clerget. This data says that it had a overall length of 18 feet 10 inches.
Then I measured the fuselage half of the kit and worked back.
5.50 inches at 1:32 = 176 inches = 14' 7"
That works out to 2.85 scale inches difference with the Roden kit having the shorter length. So to get the overall length of the kit we'll have to measure the cowl depth and the adjustable tail mechanisim joined to the rudder lengths. Maybe we can get Des to measure his build for us.
The difference appears to be under 6mm to fit the 8 scale inches in 1:32. Our own Aeroscale members have done some work on this kit.
Kornbeef Repainted WarrenI wombat58 I have had several inquiries on the fuselage length and thought to bring this back up. Now there has been a concern that one source says that all subsequent production Sopwith Triplanes with the 130hp Clerget had the 8 inches added to their fuselage length to bring it to 19' 6". The prototype Triplane powered by the 110hp Clerget had a fuselage length of 18' 10".
Now these lengths are for the fuselage and do include the rudder, engine and its spindle holding the propeller. Don't forget that the horizontal tail unit was altered to the smaller area version we see in the kit in about May 1917.
". . .The most important thing is to know why you build and then get the most that you can out of building." via D.D.
Morbihan, France
Joined: January 24, 2009
KitMaker: 18 posts
AeroScale: 17 posts
Posted: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 - 10:04 PM UTC
The fuselage length issue is a real one and Pheon Models sell revised resin parts by Brian Fawcett to correct it.
Here's a link for those interested:
http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=60082You'll note that the unattributed quote that Stephen was sent is lifted from this thread on the Pheon Models Forum on Britmodeller and written by me.
We are expecting to get a limited number of these parts back in stock in the next week or so.
With the announcement of Wingnut's forthcoming Sopwith Triplane kit (which will have the right dimensions - no doubt!) we have scaled back production of the resin fuselage for the Roden kit, so if you want one, now would be a good time to order!
Email orders to:
[email protected]Colorado, United States
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
AeroScale: 11,011 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 04, 2011 - 08:29 AM UTC
In a recent conversation with Richard Alexander he comments;
". . . The CFS report sounds like a contemporary reference to a length of 18'10" but what were they measuring? Overall length including the tip of the propeller boss or overall length of the aircraft up to the front of the cowling? This in itself can account for an 8" difference. What exactly does the original document say?. . .Again, I say, I know of no contemporary reference to an 18'10" (overall) length Sopwith Triplane but would be interested in reading the copy of the CFS test records you have. Specially so if it contains dimensioned drawings. . ."
In short WNW believe it was 19' 6" overall from the beginning.
". . .The most important thing is to know why you build and then get the most that you can out of building." via D.D.
Colorado, United States
Joined: January 25, 2004
KitMaker: 11,669 posts
AeroScale: 11,011 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 04, 2011 - 08:47 AM UTC
Quoted Text
". . .You'll note that the unattributed quote that Stephen was sent is lifted from this thread on (Dec 8 2010, 11:33 AM ) the Pheon Models Forum on Britmodeller and written by me. . ."
Quoted Text
For 18' 10" at 1:32 = 7.0625 inches. Note! I was e-mailed this recently; Posted: Sunday, November 14, 2010 - 08:29 PM GMT
"18 feet 10 inches applies to the two prototypes, N.500 and N.504 with the 110hp Clerget. N.500 went to France for operational evals during July 1916. N.504 initially had the 110 engine but had the 130 version retrofitted in September 1916 and had the rear fuselage strengthened in October. The length for production airframes was 19 feet 6 inches.
In the Harleyford publication "Sopwith - the man and his aircraft by the late Bruce Robertson & drawings by Peter G Cooksley". Covered are lengths & dimensions of every Sopwith aircraft from 1912 to 1919."
Now if thats the case19 feet 6 inches at 1:32 = 7.31 inches.
Larsa, since you have built one how does that hold up?
". . .The most important thing is to know why you build and then get the most that you can out of building." via D.D.
Morbihan, France
Joined: January 24, 2009
KitMaker: 18 posts
AeroScale: 17 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 04, 2011 - 09:09 AM UTC
Whoa, Sherlock Holmes! The text was posted earlier on the Aerodrome by me before it was repeated by me in the Britmodeller post - so you got it from there - it makes no difference to the facts. They are my words written by me, myself, on my own keyboard, with my own fingers. Whoever "sent" them to you must be at fault for not mentioning it.....
