gingerbob Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 (edited) Which illustrates the trouble with FAQs! Yes, there's a whole section for FAQs, but the way I get in and move around BM, I often don't even see it. bob Edited January 13, 2014 by gingerbob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seawinder Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Which illustrates the trouble with FAQs! Yes, there's a whole section for FAQs, but the way I get in and move around BM, I often don't even see it. bob DOH! There it is, right at the top of the menu! I just looked through it for the first time. Trouble is, all the questions are about board logistics; nothing about modeling subjects. I was thinking along the lines of the board FAQs at j-aircraft.com, which are organized by (Japanese) branch of service and specific aircraft. I use them a lot because they're easier than plowing through all the forums to get specific information. Pip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Test Graham Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 (edited) I don't use it either (and now I know why), but nonetheless its existence can - or at least could - be used by the more regular visitors. I don't think it would be used by those in a rush to post a question, at least not the less experienced members, but the "old hares" could use it to answer queries, as well as referring to it in their answer, so that time to find an answer would be reduced. The problem I see is that every aircraft is just as complicated as a Spitfire, and requires much the same level of question/answer. Do we have to have FAQs for each major type? Edited January 13, 2014 by Graham Boak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 (edited) That's like the problem faced when organizing the library: there are the books about Spitfires, then the books about RAF fighters, then the books about Squadrons (who flew the Spitfire, but then they also flew ___)... If I were more adept at the search function (see, I'm not blaming IT!) I'd say the way it works is as good as any other system. There could be a case made for the Spit getting a forum of its own, but it would still spill over into other categories. And, of course, the best threads usually sprawl well beyond their supposed purpose, as expressed in the subject line. Anarchy in the UK! (or in Britmodeller, anyway) bob Edited January 13, 2014 by gingerbob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seawinder Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 I don't know if you ever go to j-aircraft.com, but here's a link to the IJN FAQ section: http://www.j-aircraft.com/faq/navy_message_board.htm If you click on one of the menu items/links -- say A6M Zero Pt. 1 -- you'll see how they've got the actual material laid out. You still have to do some browsing/scanning, but it's reasonably efficient IMHO. Pip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Smith Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 The stripes were officially 18" wide on single engine aircraft. I've just worked this out in 1/32 for the umpteenth time for a current project. I can never remember 1/72....6.35mm 1/48....9.53mm 1/32....14.23mm I expect you'll be rounding them up or down a bit! Cheers Steve would this not just be easier in imperial, as the scales are based on imperial? so 18 inches in 1/72.... 1/4 inch [3/12ths] 1/48.... 3/8th inch I can't remember what it is in 1/32...I know. i'll look it up... It is also known as "three-eighths scale", since 3⁄8 inch represents a foot so...18 inches is 3/8th [ie 6/16ths] plus 3/16th or 9/16th's inch. I can see why mm get used, but in certain case, like this, I can't see the point of converting to mm? If this was euromodeller, and rulers don't have imperial then I can see why, but it's not hard to buy dual scale rulers. HTH T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Test Graham Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 People convert to metric because that is the measurement system that they are most familiar with, and all these yard/feet/inches stuff are only confusing to them. The UK changed to metric some 40 years ago: many of us are still comfortable with the Imperial units for everyday use but the younger generation(s) are not. Plus working in decimals is much easier than doing so in fractions - if you haven't been brought up that way. You only have to look at the number of questions on noticeboards along the lines of "how do I convert from scale X to scale Y" to realise that even people in the hobby don't understand fractions. Which seems downright peculiar to me, but it's true. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 You only have to look at the number of questions on noticeboards along the lines of "how do I convert from scale X to scale Y" to realise that even people in the hobby don't understand fractions. Which seems downright peculiar to me, but it's true. Indeed. A source of mild but continuing amazement! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kallisti Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 I'm in 3/8ths of a mind about that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonar Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) My micrometre isn't dual scale (maybe because it's French ) and although I'm old enough to 'do' fractions many today are not and can't. Cheers Steve Edited January 14, 2014 by Stonar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Isn't it strange (actually, more a sad indictment) how, at 7 years old in 1948, I and my classmates were considered able to cope with Imperial and metric measurements, even to the extent of learning the difference between the decimetre and decametre, yet today's authorities seem to believe that modern children can't achieve that level? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevej60 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 My question guys,just finishing early Mk1 (Airfix WZ-T) with the "pole" aerial most of the profiles and drawings show the usual wire running to the top of the fin,maybe because of the quality,can,t see it on any of the photographs of the real aircraft taken at the time.Do I add it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Test Graham Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 The wire is the aerial - the pole is just a mast supporting it. So yes, it should be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevej60 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 The wire is the aerial - the pole is just a mast supporting it. So yes, it should be there. The wire is the aerial - the pole is just a mast supporting it. So yes, it should be there. Thank,s yet again Graham, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selwyn Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Isn't it strange (actually, more a sad indictment) how, at 7 years old in 1948, I and my classmates were considered able to cope with Imperial and metric measurements, even to the extent of learning the difference between the decimetre and decametre, yet today's authorities seem to believe that modern children can't achieve that level? Edgar what I find funny is the adoption of "Metric Inches." I see a lot of Technical drawings (usually, but not exclusively from N America) with measurements quoted in metric inches for example a dimension may be given as "1.25 inches" ! Selwyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Edgar what I find funny is the adoption of "Metric Inches." I see a lot of Technical drawings (usually, but not exclusively from N America) with measurements quoted in metric inches for example a dimension may be given as "1.25 inches" ! Selwyn Not really uncommon. If you have to give a precise dimension, say 2.1452", it's much easier in decimal rather than give a potentially very unwieldy fraction. More relevant to recent developments, I also imagine that it's much easier to program a CAM machine using decimal figures. cheers, Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Test Graham Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) Hang on Selwyn, nothing wrong with that, using decimal values is entirely separate from adopting the metric system. Or, more properly, the SI system. When I was at secondary school physics was metre-Kilogram-second (MKS) whereas chemistry was centimeter-gram-second (CGS). Whereupon I went to university which still used Imperial measures and had to get my head around slugs, poundals, pounds, footpounds, poundsforce, etc. Clearly I'm now confused as to just which is which, though I must have known at the time. When I got out into industry to discover SI units, it was like coming out of a tunnel into the light! The older engineers were still used to doing hand calculations with curious constants on the front, soaking up all the conversion factors and appearing as black magic until laboriously explained. All washed away by the delights of a consistent system - although g was still in there to complicate matters. Then they all disappeared into computer programs anyway.... You'd have thought a competent God would have made g 10 instead of 9.81 - or would that have just been confusing? Sorry(ish) Back to Spitfires, please? Edited January 14, 2014 by Graham Boak 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 You'd have thought a competent God would have made g 10 instead of 9.81 - or would that have just been confusing?Perhaps he did, but never allowed for devaluation. I feel rather sorry for anyone, in years to come, who has a desire to do similar WWII-era research, only to be faced with having to learn a whole new (to him, or her) system of measurements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean_M Posted January 14, 2014 Author Share Posted January 14, 2014 I am sorry ....sob....really, I am.....I know this is off the topic and someone in here will have be drawn and quartered, but I CANT RESIST ANY LONGER.....having lived in the UK for 6 years I am amzed that someone said that the UK converted to metric 40 years ago....SOMEONE PLEASE TELL THE BRITS....it drives me crazy trying to understand people who quote things in imperial. I grew up abroad and it was so easy to multiply by 10 or divide by 10....please, please can we use the metric SI system on this island. Maybe let the Scots have exclusive rights to the the imperial system if they leave the Union 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) Sorry, but NOT A CHANCE!!!!!! If Imperial was good enough for R.J. Mitchell, it's good enough for me. K5054's wingspan was 37' (feet) not 1127.76cm, and the majority of later Spitfires were 36'10", not 1122.68cm. If you go through thousands of pages of drawings and reports, as I do/have, it pays to have a working knowledge of Imperial, because every flipping measurement uses that system. Edgar Edited January 14, 2014 by Edgar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 The problem is that we were meant to go metric at the same time as we went decimal but the government of the day had second thoughts. Then the Metrication Board was abolished and since then no one has grasped the nettle of finishing the job. Unfortunately it's now all wrapped onto pro and anti Europe arguments leaving my generation not entirely happy with either system or using both at the same time when cooking! So......... back on topic, when during the mk.V run did metal ailerons become factory fitted?I think it was sometime during the Vb run or was it dependent on who actually built the airframe? Trevor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Smith Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 I am sorry ....sob....really, I am.....I know this is off the topic and someone in here will have be drawn and quartered, but I CANT RESIST ANY LONGER.....having lived in the UK for 6 years I am amzed that someone said that the UK converted to metric 40 years ago....SOMEONE PLEASE TELL THE BRITS....it drives me crazy trying to understand people who quote things in imperial. I grew up abroad and it was so easy to multiply by 10 or divide by 10....please, please can we use the metric SI system on this island. Maybe let the Scots have exclusive rights to the the imperial system if they leave the Union Well The USA still uses it.... and there are plenty of American members here as well. and regarding the base 10, worth noting that base 12 actually has more whole divisors, 2, 3, 4, 6, [10 has 2 and 5] and no-one has been complaining about compasses and clocks.. . One of my ex's was Hungarian, so I got good at basic imperial to metric conversions. It's not really hard. I was 'educated' in the 70/80's and failed to get taught either very well.... I learned imperial BECAUSE of modelling, as if you are interested in RAF and US types, then all data as Edgar rightly points out is in imperial, and the scales are based on imperial. So from the above I'd say 3/8th is an exact size but 9.53mm isn't really unless you have a micrometer [both are a scale 18" in 1/48] leading to 1/48th - 1 ft = 1/4inch but 1m = 20.83mm I can work out an imperial real world measurement to 1/48th in my head, or a bit of paper, in metric I need a calculator... Sean, Britain may have 'gone metric' 40 years ago, but the Brits are a stubborn lot, so until we get metric road signs and no more pints it's not going to happen, it may be 'taught' in school but the syllabus of the UK education system is basically useless unless you want to go onto academia so what do you expect...and just look at academics. ...oh, and don't forget it was invented by the French... .so what do you expect. Even when many things are 'metric' it's just converted into metric, timber is still sold effectively by the foot [ eg 0.3m] and while metric is a very logical system, it's not a very human system.... many imperial measurement are feet, stone, hands, yard [distance from nose to fingertips] ... I use both systems as and when I need. Sean, I'd learn to remember some crude adjusters..... 1 mile = 1.5 km, and round up. 25mm = 1 inch, 30 cm = 1ft, 1 m = 1 yard [it's 3ft 3 inches but for a quick calculation...] 2.2 lb = 1kg but roughly x 2 to get kg.... you get the idea, need it exact, use a calculator. these can be done in you head to get a basic idea. And will be helpful if you ever visit the USA as well! I will admit I'd have to look up many imperial measurements,[acres, furlongs, chains, hundredweights] as I wasn't taught them, but also don't use them, but I'd have to look up what hectare was as well.... But my original point, in 1/48th [or any other imperial scale] it's easier to work in imperial, or least have a working knowledge of imperial. Or stick to Axis or Soviet models . ... sorry if off topic. Hope some of this is of use as well cheers T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 back on topic, when during the mk.V run did metal ailerons become factory fitted?I think it was sometime during the Vb run or was it dependent on who actually built the airframe? Supermarine was delivering with metal covered ailerons in April '41 (right Edgar?). Westland and Castle Brom should have had them on from the beginning of Mk.V production, but I don't know for a fact that they did (especially Castle Brom). bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonar Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 There are only three non-metric countries in the world. The USA, Liberia and Myanmar (that's Burma to those still in imperial times ) Using both systems at the same time can be very expensive......ask NASA ! Cheers Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kallisti Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 And don't forget that from the builder's yard you can buy timber 2"x4" in metre lengths Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts