Jump to content

Rigging WW1 aircraft; eyelets and turnbuckles


sanfrandragon

Recommended Posts

Greetings all.  I have made a couple of WNW aircraft (Salmson and AEG can be seen in RFI) where I have followed their recommendation and simply glued EZ Line direct into the locating holes.  However for my next project, the Von Richthofen Albatross, I want to take it a step further and use eyelets and/or turnbuckles.  I have some eyelets and tubes from Bobs Buckles and looking at Gaspatch turnbuckles, probably in 1/48 as they look more in scale.

 

My question is looking at other’s completed models the rigging and control lines seem to attach using eyelets in some places and in other places by turnbuckles and even on occasion some by turnbuckles onto eyelets (not sure how as the rings on both seem to be closed) but how do I know where to use which method?

 

Thanks for your answers in advance!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only method I know of to determine type of attachment point is via photos.  Walkaround photos of restored aircraft, particularly those that are still flying are best for clarity, but at same time am assuming the restorers were to true to historical accuracy.

 

I think there are three types of attachment points.  Two you have mentioned, turnbuckles and eyelets (the latter would be a sub-type of a grouping for stationary points of attachments, and would include different shapes like brackets with a hole, as well as control horns).  Third would be the most simplest, which is a wire entering a hole with the attachment point hidden inside the aircraft.

 

regards,

Jack

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I recall, the Gaspatch website does pretty good illustrations of the different rigging attachment schemes. Makes a good reference.

 

But Jack is entirely correct as to photos. Unless you can find a comprehensive rigging plan for a given type -- and you might do well to 'deep dive' on the Aerodrome website in such research -- photos are really the only way to sort which type is used where. (And be mindful that some a/c, such as the Sopwith Camel, didn't really use turnbuckles at all, in favor of specially-designed tensioning brackets. Only photos can show such differences.)

 

Cheers

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, JackG said:

Only method I know of to determine type of attachment point is via photos.  Walkaround photos of restored aircraft, particularly those that are still flying are best for clarity, but at same time am assuming the restorers were to true to historical accuracy.

 

I think there are three types of attachment points.  Two you have mentioned, turnbuckles and eyelets (the latter would be a sub-type of a grouping for stationary points of attachments, and would include different shapes like brackets with a hole, as well as control horns).  Third would be the most simplest, which is a wire entering a hole with the attachment point hidden inside the aircraft.

 

regards,

Jack

 

6 hours ago, thorfinn said:

As I recall, the Gaspatch website does pretty good illustrations of the different rigging attachment schemes. Makes a good reference.

 

But Jack is entirely correct as to photos. Unless you can find a comprehensive rigging plan for a given type -- and you might do well to 'deep dive' on the Aerodrome website in such research -- photos are really the only way to sort which type is used where. (And be mindful that some a/c, such as the Sopwith Camel, didn't really use turnbuckles at all, in favor of specially-designed tensioning brackets. Only photos can show such differences.)

 

Cheers

Thanks for all your help.  This website https://thevintageaviator.co.nz/projects/albatros-dva-walkaround?page=0%2C2 has some great walk arounds, including one for the Albatross DV.  Gaspatch has lots of different styles of turnbuckles including one specifically for the Albatross, although I notice from the walk around there yet more ways of attaching rigging and control wires than I thought!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

****Personal opinion warning**** 

 

    To be honest, I have never, ever seen a model sporting turnbuckles that looked anything like the real thing, even in 1/8th scale. Admirable to use those intended for a scale down from your model, but it ain't enough. Most turnbuckles are little wider than the cable to which they attach, and even a 1/72nd piece on a 1/32nd model looks too large. Also too long. And in the case of the dismal Eduard PE efforts, too 2 dimensional. The Gaspatch ones are the most authentic in appearance I've seen, but even they, due to manufacturing limitations, are too big. There used to be a bit of advice a few decades ago: if you can't do it in scale, it looks better if you don't do it at all. I think people get fixated on turnbuckles and when looking at photos, once you have the search image, they stand out far more than real life. An old (pre aftermarket) way of showing something if you feel you really have to is to marginally thicken the end of the wire with thick paint, just a bit. Or if you really, really have to, thinned white glue and a thin coat of paint. Maybe a bit more glue or paint at one end for the eyelet, if you're sure it was that large.

 

    As to where they occur, you really need a photo of a representative aircraft of the type you're modelling, which is easy enough. The one place where they stand out (to me, at least) is on some control lines, or (more rarely) on the drag lines from nose to interplane struts. The turnbuckle can occur up to half way along the cable rather than at the attachment point, and being isolated is harder to miss. Again, due to where it is, best represented by a bit of paint.

 

    Obviously I'm in a minority here, or there wouldn't be a market for the things.  If Gaspatch turnbuckles were available in 1/144 I'd consider using them for 1/48th, and in 1/72nd for 1/32nd. But then they'd probably be intensively fiddly to use and I'd end up biting my own fingers off.

 

Paul.

 

 

Edited by Paul Thompson
Baffled by my own bad spelling, 3 years after the fact.
  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am with you on this one Paul but the whole point here is " does it look right" and if doesn't then leave alone and have confidence in your own work because this whole game is about enjoyment and once it gets fannyficanarious then I'm out. There are some wonderful colour schemes out there to do and maybe try get into painting the wooden propellers . If you are doing 1/32 scale maybe eyelets and Model Factory Hiro black flexible tubing.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't use them at all because all my work is in 1:72, but if you do decide to use turnbuckles, don't forget that they are not a mounting system but an adjustment system. If a wire has a turnbuckle, it will only be at one end!

 

Ian

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Paul Thompson said:

****Personal opinion warning**** 

 

    To be honest, I have never, ever seen a model sporting turnbuckles that looked anything like the real thing, even in 1/8th scale. Admirable to use those intended for a scale down from your model, but it ain't enough. Most turnbuckles are little wider than the cable to which they attack, and even a 1/72nd piece on a 1/32nd model looks too large. Also too long. And in the case of the dismal Eduard PE efforts, too 2 dimensional. The Gaspatch ones are the most authentic in appearance I've seen, but even they, due to manufacturing limitations, are too big. There used to be a bit of advice a few decades ago: if you can't do it in scale, it looks better if you don't do it at all. I think people get fixated on turnbuckles and when looking at photos, once you have the search image, they stand out far more than real life. An old (pre aftermarket) way of showing something if you feel you really have to is to marginally thicken the end of the wire with thick paint, just a bit. Or if you really, really have to, thinned white glue and a thin coat of paint. Maybe a bit more glue or paint at one end for the eyelet, if you're sure it was that large.

 

    As to where they occur, you really need a photo of a representative aircraft of the type you're modelling, which is easy enough. The one place where they stand out (too me, at least) is on some control lines, or (more rarely) on the drag lines from nose to interplane struts. The turnbuckle can occur up to half way along the cable rather than at the attachment point, and being isolated is harder to miss. Again, due to where it is, best represented by a bit of paint.

 

    Obviously I'm in a minority here, or there wouldn't be a market for the things.  If Gaspatch turnbuckles were available in 1/144 I'd consider using them for 1/48th, and in 1/72nd for 1/32nd. But then they'd probably be intensively fiddly to use and I'd end up biting my own fingers off.

 

Paul.

 

 

Briefly: I agree! Or at least to most of it.

While on 1/48 turnbuckles are out of scale unavoidably, not only in length but mainly in thickness, I've a bit of a different view in 1/32.

If you think a standard turnbuckle is about 150mm long, give or take, and about say 40mm wide in the eyelet, this is about 3.1mm long and less than a mm wide in 1/48. In 1/32 this is just a slightly different story, with about 4.7mm lenght and 1,25mm eyelet width. A little difference, but something that can be done and look "somewhat" realistic. While I think turnbuckles would looks overexaggerated on my 1/48 birdies, I think it did look good and somewhat correct on the 1/32 Swordfish I build some time ago. But again, this is quite a massive plane and turned into a huge model (and please; do not judge the build quality, only the size of the turnbuckles.)

 

41320215vf.jpg

So, it's about proportions - the turnbuckles almost disappear in the model. For comparison, here's a picture of an Albatros BII from the military museum (HGM) in Vienna.

 

41320052qr.jpg

 

While the dimensions I gave on top are just rough estimations, there are a few proportions that are clear. Main thing, the cable is about the same size as is the turnbuckle in itself, so the only think you would see structurewise is the eyelet - so, all solutions with a small  tube running some wire in it, are consequential to thick, and, more important, are wrong in relation of turnbuckle and wire.

 

Pauls solution with a small drop of white glue and some paint might work, or just leaving it in 1/48. Even WNW gave advice not to use them on their website (1/32), and while I probably wouldn't aks them for advice in company constructions, they sure do know their way in WW1 modelling.

 

(I must contradict myself a little bit, though. I did include some two sided 1/48 turnbuckles with my latest order at Gaspatch, to give "string - turnbuckle - string" layout a try, but I have my doubts this will do the part. We'll see).   

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Brandy said:

I don't use them at all because all my work is in 1:72, but if you do decide to use turnbuckles, don't forget that they are not a mounting system but an adjustment system. If a wire has a turnbuckle, it will only be at one end!

 

Ian

RAF Wires have the threaded adjuster on both ends of the wire

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Chief Cohiba said:

Briefly: I agree! Or at least to most of it.

While on 1/48 turnbuckles are out of scale unavoidably, not only in length but mainly in thickness, I've a bit of a different view in 1/32.

If you think a standard turnbuckle is about 150mm long, give or take, and about say 40mm wide in the eyelet, this is about 3.1mm long and less than a mm wide in 1/48. In 1/32 this is just a slightly different story, with about 4.7mm lenght and 1,25mm eyelet width. A little difference, but something that can be done and look "somewhat" realistic. While I think turnbuckles would looks overexaggerated on my 1/48 birdies, I think it did look good and somewhat correct on the 1/32 Swordfish I build some time ago. But again, this is quite a massive plane and turned into a huge model (and please; do not judge the build quality, only the size of the turnbuckles.)

 

41320215vf.jpg

So, it's about proportions - the turnbuckles almost disappear in the model. For comparison, here's a picture of an Albatros BII from the military museum (HGM) in Vienna.

 

41320052qr.jpg

 

While the dimensions I gave on top are just rough estimations, there are a few proportions that are clear. Main thing, the cable is about the same size as is the turnbuckle in itself, so the only think you would see structurewise is the eyelet - so, all solutions with a small  tube running some wire in it, are consequential to thick, and, more important, are wrong in relation of turnbuckle and wire.

 

Pauls solution with a small drop of white glue and some paint might work, or just leaving it in 1/48. Even WNW gave advice not to use them on their website (1/32), and while I probably wouldn't aks them for advice in company constructions, they sure do know their way in WW1 modelling.

 

(I must contradict myself a little bit, though. I did include some two sided 1/48 turnbuckles with my latest order at Gaspatch, to give "string - turnbuckle - string" layout a try, but I have my doubts this will do the part. We'll see).   

I think the turnbuckles look pretty much to scale on your Swordfish, which looks great btw and put on my wish list after I’ve run through my remaining WNW stash.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Errrr....Chief.....the Swordfish didn't have turnbuckles on the main flying wires. They were RAF wires with threaded ends and fittings. But how was the kit in general? I am in the process of collecting 1/32 RAF inter-war 'planes and a silver Swordfish would fit the bill nicely. 

Sanfrandragon, yes, as mentioned in the posts above, be conservative in your choice of size, and please do not use those god-awful brass tubes, especially at both ends of the line. Regards, Pete in RI

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...
On 6/1/2021 at 3:00 PM, europapete said:

didn't have turnbuckles on the main flying wires

Yes, also having turnbuckles on both sides doesn't make sense in general. I started this some 10 years ago and rather wanted to try the Gaspatch parts, and obviously didn't care to much about authenticity. I'd say it is ok as a demonstrator for turnbuckle-sizing, as it's got lots of it, but other than that it's utterly wrong. 

 

As for the kit (and sorry for the late reply, I guess I didn't get any notice way back then); I enjoyed it, it wasn't overly expensive, but don't ask me about accuracy, as obviously didn't dig to deep into it.

 

On 6/1/2021 at 3:00 PM, europapete said:

collecting 1/32 RAF inter-war 'planes

 

In the meantime a few kits did hit the market, did you probably have a look into the ICM Gloster Gladiator?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Chief, yes, there are a surprising quantity out there in 1/32. So far I have in the stash:

Post war Bristol Fighter (WNW)

Post war Snipe (WNW)

Post war DH9a (WNW)

Hawker Hart (Silver Wings) (multiples, to do all versions)

Hawker Demon (Silver Wings) (again, multiples)

Gloster Gauntlet (Silver Wings)

Bristol Bulldog (Silver Wings)

AW Siskin (Silver Wings)

Fairey Flycatcher (Silver Wings)

DH Tiger Moth (Silver Wings)

Gloster Gamecock (Alley Cat) ( plus another to convert into a Grebe)

Hawker Fury (Alley Cat)

Hawker Nimrod ( Lukgraph)

Westland Wapiti (Lukgraph)

Fairey Swordfish ( Trumpeter)

Gloster Gladiator (ICM)

Pre war Spitfire (Kotare)

 

and in 1/48

Fairey 111F (Wells Props)

Hawker Woodcock (Silver Wings)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, europapete said:

So far I have in the stash:

Now, that's what I call a collection.

 

I do find the Gloster Gauntlet or the Hawker Demon rather tempting, but honestly the entire topic covers some interesting planes. If it wasn't for time to build and space to exhibit those... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...