Test Graham Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Yes it is necessary. There are instructions somewhere in the help pages. John Adams has provided a description ( and trade name) of these fabric inspection circles and it will be good to see them in close-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Aero Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 The prewar ones were called Woods frames consisting of acetate/celuloid rings and. fabric patches. The celuloid ring provided a non tear surround and the fabric within the ring was cut out and then repatched The modern type of inspection cover is slightly domed and I believe have a fastener in the centre so there is no doping involved. I used Photobucket Pro to post my photos. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 John, PM sent re one of your 48th Tigers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RHB785 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 I was at the Royal Newcastle Aero Club yesterday and took some detail pics of the club's Tiger Moth. In regards to the gap betweeen the upper engine cowling and the upper forward decking forward of the windscreen on this particular Tiger there is a slight gap visible, maybe half a finger's width deep. With regards to the inspection patches, these are circular fabric patches doped over circular metal rings. This Tiger also has the tread tubes on top of the upper cowling to spread the force when there is a person standing there refuelling the aircraft. One of the inspection patches on the rear fuselage is at the moment removed (the one under the left hand tailplane). I'm returning to the Club today so I'll take some more pics including one of the fuselage interior inside the removed inspection patch. RHB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RHB785 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Hello John Aero, There are both types of inspection patch on this particular Tiger. What I have interpreted as metal rings may well be celluloid. I'll have a closer look at theopen hatch today today. RHB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Aero Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 There may well have been other versions. The reason the original type were celluloid is that they will bond with ordinary dope to the doped fabric. The fabric is cut out of the centre of the frame which leaves a stiff edge to the fabric. After the inspection a fabric patch larger than the frame and with frayed edges is doped over the frame and for subsequent inspections this patch can be ripped off and again replaced. The Woods frame also indicates exactly where the inspection point is for future use. John 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bryanm Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 There are three props provided in the Airfix 1/48 kit, with curved diagonal tips (B3), one rounded tip and one squared off tip (B4) and streamlined tips (C10). Can anyone explain the differences? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Aero Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 I haven't seen the kit yet, but the rounded tip type might be the early type of prop. Most wartime Tigers had the diagonal tips with wider chord blades. Many modern and restored examples have symetrical props with rounded tips or a square tipped Black variety by such as Hoffman. Thje Menasco props on some Canadian variants rotate the oppoosite way to Gipsy types. John 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbit Leader Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 This is an old post from 2014 relating to the new tool 1/72 kit. Might be best to find the 1/48 kits thread and repost this same question on that. Cheers.. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bryanm Posted April 13, 2020 Share Posted April 13, 2020 I can't see a new thread (post-release) on the kit - have I missed it? If not I'll start one as I'm sure there will be other questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solar Panel Phil Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 On 2/10/2014 at 12:43 PM, John Aero said: I have just about every Tiger plan, and I have a drawing completely covered in measurements taken off the real things. I hope to have one soon to look at for the Canadian Tiger conversion. For information: the engine thrust line is 2.1/2" above the fuselage datum which is on the top longeron. Measurements taken as parallel with the main spar the top wing overall length (one panel) is 13'.10 1/2" and the lower wing panel is 13'.10 3/8" The centre section is 24" wide. In front view the span is 29' 4" with no overlap. The Tiger Moth geometry is a nightmare and it's design inception, chaos! But I love 'em. I can't remember now, but I think I made three issues of the Tiger in 1/72 scale and two in 1/48, all different. John John, greetings, hope you well. I've bought the Airfix 1/72 & 1/48 Tiggies for a bit of retirement time filling - and also have the Warpaint 101 - but on checking the 1/48 plans within that publication the Airfix 1/48 appears a tad on the small side, both on fuselage length and wingspans. As I think I read somewhere you were involved with Airfix on this one, and you mention your own plans, thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Smith Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 33 minutes ago, Solar Panel Phil said: but on checking the 1/48 plans within that publication the Airfix 1/48 appears a tad on the small side, 34 minutes ago, Solar Panel Phil said: Measurements taken as parallel with the main spar the top wing overall length (one panel) is 13'.10 1/2" and the lower wing panel is 13'.10 3/8" The centre section is 24" wide. In front view the span is 29' 4" with no overlap. @John Aero has not been on here since Nov 2020. Plans need to be treated with caution, and can easily be distorted or resized when printed. I suggest getting a ruler out and checking against the actual dimensions given on the plans and the kit. I've not seen any wailing or gnashing of teeth over the Airfix Tiger Moth on here as well. HTH 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solar Panel Phil Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 Troy, many thanks, I hope 'John Aero' is still with us. I'm minded to think Airfix these days gets the basic measurements and shapes right, especially where a quintessential British machine is involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjohns5 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 (edited) 5 hours ago, Solar Panel Phil said: John, greetings, hope you well. I've bought the Airfix 1/72 & 1/48 Tiggies for a bit of retirement time filling - and also have the Warpaint 101 - but on checking the 1/48 plans within that publication the Airfix 1/48 appears a tad on the small side, both on fuselage length and wingspans. As I think I read somewhere you were involved with Airfix on this one, and you mention your own plans, thoughts? As Troy said above, it's best not to put total faith into published plans as the printing process introduces variance into the output that can skew the results. Looking at various official 1930s/1940s Tiger Moth publications from the RAF, RAAF and RCAF, the wingspan of the aircraft is consistently listed as 29 feet, four inches. Reducing that to 1/48 scale gives us a scale dimension of 7.33 inches or approximately 7 and 11/32 inches. Pulling an Airfix kit out of my cupboard and measuring the wingspan of both wings yields an actual measurement of about 7 and 9/32. Curious about why that difference might be I looked through some of the Tiger Moth documentation I've collected and found in the Manual of Instructions for Operation, Maintenance and Rigging issued by de Havilland Aircraft Ltd. Australia a factory drawing which illustrates lubrication points. If you compare the shape of the wingtip in the drawing with that of the kit, it appears to me that Airfix made the tip too squarish where the drawing shows an egg-shaped curve widening out considerably at the aileron hinge point. I think that difference accounts for 1/32 of difference on each side which could make up the missing span width. It may well be that Airfix based their kit on restored/preserved examples that had been modified over the years for whatever reason with slightly different shaped wingtips. I in no way claim to be an expert on the Tiger Moth, I just have made a habit for 20 years or so of collecting useful bits and documents as I come across them. Edited March 12 by bjohns5 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solar Panel Phil Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 Bjohns5, much obliged! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Puff Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 Many years ago an engineer mate warned me about relying on incidental detail in any drawing prepared for a particular purpose - he said that most of it was simply to show the position of the subject matter in relation to the rest of the structure. On that basis I'd be reluctant to regard the drawn shape of a wingtip in an oiling diagram as gospel - rather, it simply gives an idea of where the oiling points lie in relation to the wingtip. The Airfix wingtips look much more like the wingtips on the examples of the real thing that I've been up close and personal with than does the wingtip shown in the oiling diagram. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 (edited) On 3/12/2024 at 8:12 PM, bjohns5 said: If you compare the shape of the wingtip in the drawing with that of the kit, it appears to me that Airfix made the tip too squarish where the drawing shows an egg-shaped curve widening out considerably at the aileron hinge point. I agree with Admiral Puff: comparing the wingtips shapes of the kit with that drawing is not likely to lead to happiness. Comparing the kit to actual Tiger Moths makes a lot more sense. The full size aircraft wingtip bows were not made with reference to that drawing, it's just an approximation and all you can rely on it for is the information it actually set out to convey Edited March 17 by Work In Progress Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjohns5 Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 I don't find many photos of Tiger Moths from an angle that shows the wingtip shape well, but the one's I did find to my eye show a tip shape much closer to the de Havilland drawing than to Airfix's interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spitfire31 Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 @bjohns5: You are right. There's no doubt about it. It is difficult to find Tiger Moth photos showing a good plan view in the air. I only found one, the camouflaged machine. You must have looked hard to find four of them! In the process, you also managed to prove yourself wrong and Airfix as near right as makes no difference. I don't know about your eyes … astigmatism, perhaps? To my photographer's eyes, all four rolling Moths show quite clearly that the wing tip curve has a perceptible flattening of the curve at around one third chord. Your de Havilland drawing, on the other hand shows a simplified, almost continuous curve. If you don't want to see that, fine. I could make a Photoshop document to prove it, but truth be told, I just can't be bothered. A simple solution is to just grab a pack of Milliput, a sanding block – et voilà, you will have wing tips to your satisfaction. Everybody happy. 🤗 Over and out. Kind regards, Joachim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now