tipper Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 Guys/Gals I'm building Hasegawa's 48th scale F-104G CCV and I've encountered this problem: If I build it as is (without modifying), the port wing will noticably have a greater anhedral than the starboard. For the benefit of those who haven't built this and other variants of Hase's starfighter, the wings lock on to a blukhead inside, assuring a 'correct' angle in relation to the fuselage. I haven't done any research on the subject (thought i'd ask you guys 1st, hehe!) so here goes: Does the port wing on the real ac have a greater anhedral than the starboard? Do I build it as is or do I 'correct' it? Thanks in advance! Tipper P.S. This problem might be due to my nowhere-near-perfect, ham fisted modelling techniques, I've nothing but praises for the kit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandX Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 Hi, this may help (at page 13): http://www.rolfferch.de/F104G/Paper_F104.pdf Quote: "To compensate for the increased roll that resulted from the vertical tail, negative dihedral -or cathedral (sic)- was put in the wing. Cathedral angle is approximately 10 degrees" Now, I can't find the word 'cathedral' used in this context anywhere else, so I assume it is a glitch in translation and should read 'dihedral'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigsty Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 The F-104's wings are symmetrical - same anhedral on either side. There must have been a design once that wasn't, though I shudder to think what might have become of it. I've not heard of the Hasegawa kit having asymmetry built in, and I've seen a fair few built up. So far as I can tell the CCV modification didn't change the main wing. So I wonder if it may be the way you're building it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 I find the same problem with the 1/72nd ones but all you get is the simple tab and slot to fix the wings in place. Its a matter of eyeballing the symmetry of the anhedral and supporting the model on a jig to ensure the wings set at the proper angle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selwyn Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 (edited) Building one as we speak. I am just at the point of fitting the wings and I test fitted them last night, with no apparent problem at all, there is no different anahedral apparent on my build. In fact the wings are a good close fit sit at the correct angle and will probably not require any filler. I wonder if you got the fuselage bulkhead a bit out of place? I did have to give both fuselage halves a bit of a jiggle to get them to come together. Selwyn Edited September 3, 2012 by Selwyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 I've built two Has 1/48 F-104's so far, the second one being the Revell boxing, which suffered from the same alignment problem as mentioned above. I did'nt notice until the wings had been glued, but a light scoring of the offending wing root and a bit of upward pressure and all was sorted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tipper Posted September 5, 2012 Author Share Posted September 5, 2012 Guys Thanks for the responses! I've since adjusted the port wing to match the anhedral of the starboard one. Ah, what would i do without you, most excellent brothers in plastic? Tipper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennings Heilig Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Isn't "cathedral" a big church? Maybe that's where you to go pray that your designer put symmetrical negative dihedral in your wings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) Isn't "cathedral" a big church? Maybe that's where you to go pray that your designer put symmetrical negative dihedral in your wings? Not necessarily a big church, but one where a Bishop is formally located. As such, the cathedral is the headquarter of a diocese. While most cathedral are big churches, some are much less imposing The above mentioned Bishop can then intercede with the designer to put the correct symmetrical dihedral (or in this case anhedral) as you suggest And yes, the F-104 had a symmetrical dihedral on both wings. The hasegawa kits can however be a bit tricky to build, so I'm not surprised this kind of things happen Edited September 5, 2012 by Giorgio N 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigsty Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 You know the odd thing? "Cathedral" should be the opposite of "anhedral", not a substitute for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selwyn Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 You know the odd thing? "Cathedral" should be the opposite of "anhedral", not a substitute for it. At this point I think I will be taking a trip to York Minster.........................................! Selwyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffreyK Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 The problem lies with the wheel bay/bulkhead section. Even though it seems to fit well into the fuselage halves, it's very easy to get an uneven alignment inside and then the wings are forced into the odd, asymmetrical position. It takes a bit of dry fitting with all parts and wings in place. I gradually shaved off some of the bulkhead contours on the offending side until I had an even fit. When committing to glue, make sure it stays even... Cheers Jeffrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennings Heilig Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Yorkminster Cathedral has a wheel bay? I had no idea it was moveable. You really do learn something new every day around here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigsty Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Yorkminster Cathedral has a wheel bay? 'Tis York Minster - different from a cathedral. You may be thinking of Westminster Cathedral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffreyK Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 dear o'dear... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selwyn Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 'Tis York Minster - different from a cathedral. You may be thinking of Westminster Cathedral. York is a Minster and a Cathedral. and to refer to your answer above; so is Westminster Cathedral! (The word derives from the Old English "mynster", meaning "monastery", "nunnery", "mother church" or "cathedral", itself derived from the Latin "monasterium", meaning a group of clergy living a communal life. Thus, "minster" could apply to any church whose clergy followed a formal rule: as for example a monastery or a chapter or simply to a church served by a less formal group of clergy living communally.) But I must admit as far as I know it does not have a wheel bay! (My god! this thread is a long way from the angle of a F104 wing. How on earth did we get here?) Selwyn (baffled) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigsty Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Well, yes, all that's true. I only meant that although York Minster is a cathedral, it's not called one. Some former minsters are now called cathedrals, while others still using the name are barely more than parish churches. Then there's the elevated abbeys such as Westminster. Whereas at least we know that any building called a cathedral actually is one. Has anyone checked the angles of the flying buttresses for symmetry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Has anyone checked the angles of the flying buttresses for symmetry? Not exactly but I measured the simmetry of the columns supporting the dome in a cathedral, would this be ok ? And the simmetry changed a bit over time depending on the temperature and the movements in the soil below... hope this did not happen on the F-104, the Starfighter already had its share of problems without this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigsty Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Not exactly but I measured the simmetry of the columns supporting the dome in a cathedral, would this be ok ? And the simmetry changed a bit over time depending on the temperature and the movements in the soil below Yes ... if you want to scare yourself, go to Salisbury Cathedral and stand at the base of one of the columns holding up the spire. Look up and marvel at the sight of stone bending. Then look down and remember that the foundations are six feet deep (the spire reaches 404 feet) and are basically sitting on bundles of reeds. In a water meadow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procopius Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 I learn the most amazing things on Britmodeller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selwyn Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Yes ... if you want to scare yourself, go to Salisbury Cathedral and stand at the base of one of the columns holding up the spire. Look up and marvel at the sight of stone bending. Then look down and remember that the foundations are six feet deep (the spire reaches 404 feet) and are basically sitting on bundles of reeds. In a water meadow. If At least Salisbury had some foundations What about Winchestercathedral, - read this! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Walker_(diver) Selwyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Test Graham Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 When I was working at Warton in the late 70s we had a translator come up for help with some German document. The problem was that she didn't know what word to use for "cathedral". It may (or may not) surprise you, but no one in the aerodynamics department could say, either. I think we eventually worked out it was anhedral, from the context, but there was some discussion as to whether it actually was a term that could include both. I'm interested in the suggestion that anhedral should be the opposite of cathedral. Can you expand on that? In that case, where does dihedral fit in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigsty Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 I'm interested in the suggestion that anhedral should be the opposite of cathedral. Can you expand on that? In that case, where does dihedral fit in? Erm ... well ... a cathedral would be a positive church, an anhedral would be a negative one, and I suppose by extension a dihedral would have to be one that doesn't allow holiness to pass through. The "hedral" in the aviation terms is derived from multi-plane geometry - the same root as polyhedron. The "hedral" in cathedral comes from cathedra, Latin for chair, to denote a bishop's throne. There's no connection. Although that doesn't explain how two sources do seem to have confused anhedral with cathedral. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanguin Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 As in Colonel Cody and his 'Cathedral' biplanes. I first assumed that their name was derived from their size and complexity of struts and wires, but it was down to the French word (as Sean says) that describes the multiple curvature of the wings. http://www3.hants.gov.uk/aldershot-museum/local-history-aldershot/samuel-franklin-cody/kites-and-flying-machines.htm If Cody had ever seen a Starfighter, he would have be blown away, as would his Laffans Plain tree with a J79 engine tied to it! John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dambuster Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Katahedral from which cathedral was derived by Cody gives another pair of opposites for those who have studied met - katabatic and anabatic. Nice symmetry with cathedral and anhedral. Which gets us nicely back on topic.... 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