Fairey IIIF fuselage dimensions

[Patrik]

As I promised here:

I would like to initiate discussion on the fuselage dimension of the Fairey IIIF. I am fully aware this may be quite a short-living thread, but promises must be kept. Please notice it is not my intention to reprehend the Kora kit in any way, I am very happy with the landplane releases. And if they indeed release the floatplanes, and later Gordon and Seal too, I will be buying and buying. Please notice furthermore, that I am also no "millimetre-freak". If the overall proportions of the kit I build are right to my eye, I do not care about millimetre here or there. It is just that being surveyor by professions, I am, as many surveyors, rather obsessed with dimensions and numbers.

 

I started by re-reading the excellent thread here, that I heartily recommend to everyone interested in the topic:

Then I tried to collect the dimensions from the reference material available to me. I do not claim it is 100% complete or 100% correct, so I will be for sure happy if someone checks it independently. 

 

 

As you can see, the figures, both quoted and from the drawings, are quite confusing and overall do not fit to one another. It is obvious some of the landplane lengths are in fact for the floatplane version. It is not clear, whether the lengths are along the datum or "as standing on the ground". It is not clear, whether the lengths are with or without the spinner, alternatively with or without the rudder light, and so forth.

 

Therefore I would like to invite you all to open discussion.

 

I would like to invite especially @John Aero, though he had expressed his opinion clearly in the thread above already. On the other hand, the last post there is more than 6 years old, so new information could have been unearthed in the meantime.

 

I would like to invite @wellsprop:

Whatever his research and eventual confusion on the dimensions could have been, he must have made some final decision before pushing the "print" button. So he may be willing to share his thoughts with us. By the way, Ben's fuselage, when measured just so from the notebook screen, is slightly over 34 ft, from the tip of the spinner to the tip of the rudder light.

 

And I would also like to invite the Kora guys, which I will do via email, as they too had to make the same decision as Ben when designing their kit.

Edited November 14, 2020 by Patrik

[wellsprop]

@Patrik, could you have done this BEFORE I CAD modelled and 3D printed kits? 😂

 

In all seriousness, excellent work!

 

As for what I did, I got the plans from Aeroplane Magazine database article, I called them using wingspan ONLY, seeing as the wingspan is (near enough) constant at 45ft 9". I then measured the fuselage length from the drawings (scaled by wingspan). I repeated this for all the other plans I could find online, none matched perfectly, some longer, some shorter. But in 48th scale the difference was +/- 0.8mm.

 

I designed a CAD model that looks about right and is probably the best way of getting a 48th Fairey IIIF, I can't vouch for accuracy! I really know very little about the specific details of the aircraft, it was a bit of judgement and a bit of guesswork.

 

I'm going to be following this one closely...

 

EDIT: I have measured my CAD model (based on the Aeroplane Database plans;

The length from the tip of the spinner to the end of the rudder is 209.4mm in 48th scale - 33 feet.

The length from the very front of the fuselage (rear of spinner) to the end of the rudder is 199.5mm in 48th scale - 31ft 5".

Visually, the model matches up with the Aeroplane Databased plans as well as a few other plans I found (of course, they could all be wrong!)

[Patrik]

I had zero intention to spoil your joy @wellsprop, I am sorry. It is just that as 1/72 guy, I had not paid enough attention to your thread from the very start and when I did, then just as curious observer. However, you did the right thing. You made your choice and carried on. With endless contemplating about what may be right and what may be wrong, there would be still no Fairey IIIF in 1/48 or 1/32. Many thanks for sharing your ideas with us.

 

I am watching your 3D printing enterprise with great interest and with absolutely positive envy (can't find better word) of your designing skills. As surveyor, I would know how to measure the real thing. As photogrammetrist in particular, I know a lot about laserscanning (lidar), point cloud correlation or measurements from the photos and similar stuff. All of which is hardly feasible for almost 100 year's old machines. Even thinking about some kind of surface reconstruction from photos, I would need several of them for the same airframe from various specific angles. And then I would still need a CAD guy to convert my measurements to usable 3D model.

 

Your approach made me think of the various scale drawings once again. I will ignore the printed scales or scale bars, set the wingspan (which is more or less undisputed) as a constant, and then let us see, what comes out of the fuselage lengths. It is raining anyway today, we have public holiday here, the football on the TV without the audience reminds me more of district league than first division (swear language included), so good idea for killing the time.

 

I received an answer from Jan Matejny of Kora too. He said they had used the most often quoted length for the later versions. So whatever that means, they used similar approach as @wellsprop, With no general consent, they made their decision, and left the nitpicking for us.😀

[wellsprop]

@Patrik, haha, I joke of course!!

 

It seems particularly difficult to get accurate dimensions as there are no Fairey IIIF airframes left. I did have a look in the archive at work quite a while ago, there are some Fairey drawings remaining, but I didn't stumble across any of the IIIF!

[Patrik]

5 minutes ago, wellsprop said:

@Patrik, haha, I joke of course!!

 

It seems particularly difficult to get accurate dimensions as there are no Fairey IIIF airframes left. I did have a look in the archive at work quite a while ago, there are some Fairey drawings remaining, but I didn't stumble across any of the IIIF!

Joke understood. But I still feel a wee bit guilty. Next time, when searching for references on interwar British subjects, do not hesitate asking for support.  But not the Wapiti please. Seems to be another can of worms.😀

[wellsprop]

So, I've been making a Wapiti... 😂

[Selwyn]

Have you tried contacting the RAF Museum?

They might still have the relevant Air Publications (AP) that detail the aircraft packaging instructions (for crating and shipping) which usually quote the airframe dimensions so that  crates can be made to size.

 

Selwyn

[Anthony in NZ]

On 9/28/2020 at 9:53 AM, wellsprop said:

@Patrik, could you have done this BEFORE I CAD modelled and 3D printed kits? 😂

 

In all seriousness, excellent work!

 

As for what I did, I got the plans from Aeroplane Magazine database article, I called them using wingspan ONLY, seeing as the wingspan is (near enough) constant at 45ft 9". I then measured the fuselage length from the drawings (scaled by wingspan). I repeated this for all the other plans I could find online, none matched perfectly, some longer, some shorter. But in 48th scale the difference was +/- 0.8mm.

 

I designed a CAD model that looks about right and is probably the best way of getting a 48th Fairey IIIF, I can't vouch for accuracy! I really know very little about the specific details of the aircraft, it was a bit of judgement and a bit of guesswork.

 

I'm going to be following this one closely...

 

EDIT: I have measured my CAD model (based on the Aeroplane Database plans;

The length from the tip of the spinner to the end of the rudder is 209.4mm in 48th scale - 33 feet.

The length from the very front of the fuselage (rear of spinner) to the end of the rudder is 199.5mm in 48th scale - 31ft 5".

Visually, the model matches up with the Aeroplane Databased plans as well as a few other plans I found (of course, they could all be wrong!)

Well it looks like you did a pretty darn good job.  I have tried to read through all the numbers, how did yours stack up?  Must be pretty close, or slightly short? Either way, you did an amazing job!

[wellsprop]

Has anyone had a look at this?

https://www.flight-manuals-online.com/product/fairey-iiif/

[Patrik]

Very tempting. I think I am going to peep later today.

[Patrik]

Decided to sacrifice the ten bucks, for which I got download links for two 1932 manuals - the FAA 3-seater and the GP (RAF) 2-seater. Both are veritable treasure chest of inspiration for detailing, especially in the cockpit area. They also include very interesting reading, and I do not regret the investment at all.

On the first sight the manuals share a lot of text and many diagrams, including the dimensions. By the way, they are labelled as produced in NZ.

 

The most important information for this thread:

1. The dimensions are identical for both versions.

2. The length, including spinner and rudder light, is 34 ft 4 in in the rigging diagram, highlighted in red below. I think this is the correct figure - I agree with @John Aero.

3. This is not confirmed by the table on the initial pages of the manual, however notice the interesting handwritten correction from the FAA 3-seater manual.

 

Edited October 4, 2020 by Patrik

[wellsprop]

Well that's definitive enough for me. The length is/was 34'4".

 

Mine measures in at 33' ooowwwwwhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. So it's 4% too short, despite this, the wingspan is correct (the wing chord is 4% short too).

 

In other words, the drawings I used from Aeroplane Database were 4% incorrect in length, but correct in width. The fuselage depth also appears correct

 

Now, I need to 3D print a time machine, go back a couple months and correct the length of the model.

 

So, for the 1/32 version I will correct this by scaling the length only by 4%. As for the 1/48 version, that's going to take some work, I have to modify every part and recreate all the print files 😕

 

Oh well, it'll be more accurate at least

 

EDIT: Also, notice it quotes the upper span as 45 3 and 3/4, but the lower span as 45 9. Yet the "main dimension" section quotes the span as 45 9 for upper and lower. Ah, British engineering of the early 20th century!

 

 

[wellsprop]

I should also add, 4% inaccuracy for my first 3D designed model based on a scan of a magazine drawing and fairly limited information... I'll take that!

[Pete M.]

I too downloaded the manuals which will help with further detailing.

Ben, I'll go with whatever you've done mate, too bloody late now! 🙃

 

Cheers,

Pete M.

[Anthony in NZ]

10 hours ago, wellsprop said:

Well that's definitive enough for me. The length is/was 34'4".

 

Mine measures in at 33' ooowwwwwhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. So it's 4% too short, despite this, the wingspan is correct (the wing chord is 4% short too).

 

In other words, the drawings I used from Aeroplane Database were 4% incorrect in length, but correct in width. The fuselage depth also appears correct

 

Now, I need to 3D print a time machine, go back a couple months and correct the length of the model.

 

So, for the 1/32 version I will correct this by scaling the length only by 4%. As for the 1/48 version, that's going to take some work, I have to modify every part and recreate all the print files 😕

 

Oh well, it'll be more accurate at least

 

EDIT: Also, notice it quotes the upper span as 45 3 and 3/4, but the lower span as 45 9. Yet the "main dimension" section quotes the span as 45 9 for upper and lower. Ah, British engineering of the early 20th century!

 

 

Oh buddy, what you are doing is awesome and made one of my modelling dreams come true! I SUPER appreciate the extra time in tweaking the 1/32 version and am happy to pay the extra for your time with this.  Otherwise I know what I am like I will end up cutting and splicing with my OCD to increase the length!

 

Thanks again, PM coming now I am home from work

 

Cheers Anthony

 

 

[wellsprop]

@Anthony in NZ it's no extra effort for the 1/32 version, I have to scale all the files up anyway!

 

I still need to modify the instrument panel slightly to make it more realistic too...

[europapete]

Will get a copy of those AP's, and can't wait for the kit to arrive! As for the 4%, that's an easy solution. I will simply adjust the prescription of my eye glasses so it looks spot on!  Regards Pete in RI

[Patrik]

On 10/5/2020 at 9:52 PM, wellsprop said:

Well that's definitive enough for me. The length is/was 34'4".

 

Mine measures in at 33' ooowwwwwhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. So it's 4% too short, despite this, the wingspan is correct (the wing chord is 4% short too).

 

In other words, the drawings I used from Aeroplane Database were 4% incorrect in length, but correct in width. The fuselage depth also appears correct

 

Now, I need to 3D print a time machine, go back a couple months and correct the length of the model.

 

So, for the 1/32 version I will correct this by scaling the length only by 4%. As for the 1/48 version, that's going to take some work, I have to modify every part and recreate all the print files 😕

 

Oh well, it'll be more accurate at least

 

EDIT: Also, notice it quotes the upper span as 45 3 and 3/4, but the lower span as 45 9. Yet the "main dimension" section quotes the span as 45 9 for upper and lower. Ah, British engineering of the early 20th century!

 

 

Making you recreating the print files for the 1/48 version was not my intention at all. 4 % means, your kit is 8.5 mm shorter on a 21-22 cm length. As the fuselage seems to be proportionally fine, I am sure no one will ever recognize the missing 40 microns on each millimetre. Well, I know that YOU will recognize it and I am afraid it is now all that matters here.😀 However, we are all happy about your efforts, and if I was not strict 1/72 builder, I would happily build the Fairey myself. And I am going to build the Kora 1/72 kit, which is 7 mm longer than 34'4" in 1/72, and I will be happy with it. 

 

Nevertheless, the whole story shows the well known danger of the scale drawings interpretation. Which sometimes, even when correctly delineated, are incorrectly printed. There are good and bad scale drawings, and there are aircraft types that are represented reliably, some other less reliably and other even not at all. Looking at your interwar printing poll, I checked my references for the availability of drawings. Nieuport 52 is out of my subject of interest, Only the Fairey Fox is fairly covered. As for the rest, if I do not count the general drawings in the Putnam books, I will have none on Fawn, Blackburn, Rippon/Baffin or Gordon/Seal. So it would be hard to make the 3D print files, if you did not want to go one step further and make your own drawings first.

 

But then you have good start on Gordon/Seal. Because - quoting my new best friend on Fairey IIIF:

 

[wellsprop]

3 hours ago, Patrik said:

Making you recreating the print files for the 1/48 version was not my intention at all.

 

But then you have good start on Gordon/Seal. Because - quoting my new best friend on Fairey IIIF:

 

 

Honestly, many thanks for pointing it out, I've already redone all the files so the kit has become more accurate, it's down to the interest and research of people on forums and threads like this that allow us as aviation enthusiast to learn even ore about what we love!

 

Thanks for pointing this out about the Fairey Gordon too, it means all i need to do is redesign the nose, that won't take long  (providing the interest is there!)

 

Ben

[Anthony in NZ]

3 hours ago, wellsprop said:

 

Honestly, many thanks for pointing it out, I've already redone all the files so the kit has become more accurate, it's down to the interest and research of people on forums and threads like this that allow us as aviation enthusiast to learn even ore about what we love!

 

Thanks for pointing this out about the Fairey Gordon too, it means all i need to do is redesign the nose, that won't take long  (providing the interest is there!)

 

Ben

Yup......

[SilverWings]

On 10/5/2020 at 6:10 PM, Pete M. said:

I too downloaded the manuals which will help with further detailing.

Ben, I'll go with whatever you've done mate, too bloody late now! 🙃

 

Cheers,

Pete M.

Downloaded the manuals today.

Agree with Pete M. Just keep doing what you are doing.

[Ptmvarsityfan]

Hi all, to add to the confusion I recently found a copy of the 1960's Profile Publication on the IIIF and the dimensions are given as 34' 4" for the FAA IIIB and 36' 8 5/8"for the RAF IVM. No explanation is given for this difference but I see that the above manual is a FAA publication. The Putnam Aircraft of the Royal Air Force book also quotes the longer length. Not surprising that Kora went for this length and I am delighted with their new kit!

Cheers, Paul

[wellsprop]

2 hours ago, ptmvarsityfan said:

Hi all, to add to the confusion I recently found a copy of the 1960's Profile Publication on the IIIF and the dimensions are given as 34' 4" for the FAA IIIB and 36' 8 5/8"for the RAF IVM. No explanation is given for this difference but I see that the above manual is a FAA publication. The Putnam Aircraft of the Royal Air Force book also quotes the longer length. Not surprising that Kora went for this length and I am delighted with their new kit!

Cheers, Paul

Could this be fuselage length vs length including floats? 

[Ptmvarsityfan]

21 hours ago, wellsprop said:

Could this be fuselage length vs length including floats? 

Possibly, the floats don't seem to project too far in front of the fuselage so a two foot difference is plausible. However floats are not mentioned in the dimensions quoted in the Profile. In the Putnam book on Fairey aircraft by HA Taylor there is quite a long chapter on the IIIf and three different lengths are quoted, one being a floatplane! I will check and post the details when I can.

Saying all this, after nearly a hundred years and with only a fuselage frame as the only surviving relic I doubt that we will ever know for certain

and Kora had to base their kit on widely quoted dimensions. I think they have done a good job, although it is the upper fuselage decking that I find most confusing and whether the rear gun was ever carried.

Cheers, Paul

 

[wellsprop]

14 minutes ago, ptmvarsityfan said:

although it is the upper fuselage decking that I find most confusing and whether the rear gun was ever carried.

 

Agreed!

 

I claim to be no expert at all, from what I read/saw when coming up with my design, there seems to be a healthy lump of ambiguity about the rear fuselage decking. Moreover, there's a few images which show aircraft with similar serial numbers (so it's reasonably safe to assume they were produced at roughly the same time), but showing different variations of rear decking.

 

It's also only just struck me that this is an aircraft that is very nearly 100 years old!