Opinions on white elastic rigging thread

[TheKinksFan]

I've been using mostly AK Interactive's Hyper Thin, it's the second thinnest. I've got also Mega Thin, which is finer, and the finest from Uschi, but I find that they are a bit difficult to use, as they are so thin that just the air moving indoors makes the thread sway. I wish these threads were available in grey, or something that would look a bit more like metal. Has anyone used Infini's white rigging? I wonder how does it look in a 1/72 model. Black can look a bit stark, but on the other hand maybe white is too invisible. I've sometimes used a toothpick and Vallejo Aluminium to dye the threads, once the plane has been rigged.

I've also used Prym's Knitting-In Elastic, which more transparent than white, but I know that some have left it as it is, unpainted. Prym is a bit too thick for 1/72 in my opinion.

[Paul Thompson]

      The lighter the rigging material, the more visible and over scale it looks, to me at least. I used to colour clear or white thread by hanging a peg from it, wedging the reel on the top shelf, and running a brush loaded with Model Master Metaliser steel along it, then letting it dry for an hour before use. It doesn't come off when the tension is removed, being a very fine grained laquer. Howver, since it has now joined the company of hen's teeth, I just run a silver Sharpie along the thread, suspended the same way. One thing you learn from all that is that even the roundest looking elastic thread is to some extent a very long ribbon, so with a Sharpie you need to run up and down it a couple of times to make sure both sides get coloured. Then it isn't so obvious if you get it twisted when installed because the colour density stays the same.

 

       Now, I know what I mean, so I think that paragraph gets the message across, but I'm standing too close to it, so by all means scream if it seems like gibberish.

 

 

Paul.

[TheKinksFan]

1 hour ago, Paul Thompson said:

I used to colour clear or white thread by hanging a peg from it, wedging the reel on the top shelf,

I'm not sure if I understood your method correctly, do you mean you use a clothes peg to hold the end of the thread and put the reel somewhere high, in your case on the top shelf? These Uschi and AK threads are so fine, that I'm not sure a peg will hold. And there's so much tension, that often just touching the thread will make it recoil, and then it gets entangled. Fortunately usually it can be straightened. I've read that Infini rigging is less elastic, maybe it's more suitable for dyeing beforehand. And it's supposedly round, AK's thread is flat, and it's width is not consistent, which is annoying.

 

[Paul Thompson]

25 minutes ago, TheKinksFan said:

I'm not sure if I understood your method correctly, do you mean you use a clothes peg to hold the end of the thread and put the reel somewhere high, in your case on the top shelf? These Uschi and AK threads are so fine, that I'm not sure a peg will hold. And there's so much tension, that often just touching the thread will make it recoil, and then it gets entangled. Fortunately usually it can be straightened. I've read that Infini rigging is less elastic, maybe it's more suitable for dyeing beforehand. And it's supposedly round, AK's thread is flat, and it's width is not consistent, which is annoying.

 

 

      I have two similar sizes of elastic thread, not sure of the size but definitely flat (as is the Uschi, when you look closely enough). One is an old Aeroclub reel more than 15 years old which I know hasn't perished yet. The other is lycra, name forgotten but only a couple of years old. Both stretch about the same, a wooden clothes peg dragging them out to roughly twice the resting state.

 

      For the above mentioned threads a clothes peg on the free end is used to stretch it, or I also have a small self-locking tweezer does the job. Both hold okay. Never had trouble with the tweezers, and 7 of the 10 pegs I liberated from the washing basket grip reliably.  I recently needed something to grab the end of some Uschi thread so that I could mark it with a Molotov chrome marker, and for that the self-locker was good enough. Pegs work but it takes longer to find the right spot to hold with.  In this case I just used it to hold the thread steady (as you say, air currents can wave it about, as does static) under slight tension, with the bobbin end fixed to the desk. I wouldn't have hung it because it stretches much more than any other stuff I've used, and there's no gain in tugging it more than needed for the marker to grab hold. The thread is then about 1 cm above the desk, and I put a piece of white card underneath (to both enable me to see the thread, and prevent marking the desk)  while very gently drawing the marker along the thread. How much you can do in one go just depends on the deck space you have. I find a Sharpie isn't bright enough to show on the Uschi thread, hence the Molotov, which doesn't look shiny . The diameter I'm using is labelled 'fine', and I use it for control cables.

 

     EZline is also inconsistent width wise, which is why I've abandoned it mostly.

 

      I hope that's clearer........

 

Paul.

[TheKinksFan]

On 26/09/2023 at 16:50, Paul Thompson said:

  I hope that's clearer........

Thank you Paul, yes now it's very clear. I have a Tamiya marker X-11 and a Molotow marker with 1mm tip. I was thinking of getting Infini's 40 denier thread. It's used in this guy's build: https://luftraum72.com/albatros-dva-bavarian/

I don't know if it's totally round either, but looks quite good.

Are control cables usually thinner? If so, the finest threads from AK and Uschi could be more suitable.

 

Simon

[Paul Thompson]

Simon,

 

    Please let me know how it goes if you do get it. Always interested in new stuff.

    Yes, control cables are often visibly thinner in period photos, and (IIRC) WNW sometimes give different diameters for different cables in the barbarian 1/32 scale. If you ever get one of the old Air Publication rigging guides, there are half a dozen diameters given  for any particular aircraft. And round as well, being normally a twisted cable rather than RAFwire.  I usually use something half the diameter of the bracing wires for the control wires where feasible, and the Uschii stuff is so thin and hard to handle it automatically gets reserved for the longer, more vulnerable wires such as the long external elevator runs on Airco types, and Bristol Fighters. Took decades of patiently making and attaching the finest possible stretched sprue for that, then a few minutes later trapping it with the fingers when picking the model up by the fuselage. Eventually, grew a little wiser, at least in that respect.

 

 

 

Paul.

[bertielissie]

I've found using stretchy thread of different makes problematic, The initial placement is easy but stretching it to the ideal tension and accurately placing a microdot of CA is terribly risky for me. I used the old stretched sprue method originally because I liked the idea of attaching it with PVA glue. If I made an error it was easy to clean up ------ unlike superglue which has caused marks on painted surfaces especially on biplanes. (because I lack the fine motor skills and 20/20 vision that other skilled modellers have).

As Paul T has correctly pointed out, the rigging wires need to be silver in colour ( and clear stretched sprue just doesn't look accurate).

I'm now using very fine artists wire. It's sold in rolls so it has to be rolled out,  cut oversized, tensioned with pliers, remeasured and then glued--either with CA glue or PVA.  Just my 'tuppence worth.

[TheKinksFan]

8 hours ago, Paul Thompson said:

Please let me know how it goes if you do get it. Always interested in new stuff.

    Yes, control cables are often visibly thinner in period photos, and (IIRC) WNW sometimes give different diameters for different cables in the barbarian 1/32 scale. If you ever get one of the old Air Publication rigging guides, there are half a dozen diameters given  for any particular aircraft. And round as well, being normally a twisted cable rather than RAFwire.  I usually use something half the diameter of the bracing wires for the control wires where feasible, and the Uschii stuff is so thin and hard to handle it automatically gets reserved for the longer, more vulnerable wires such as the long external elevator runs on Airco types, and Bristol Fighters. Took decades of patiently making and attaching the finest possible stretched sprue for that, then a few minutes later trapping it with the fingers when picking the model up by the fuselage. Eventually, grew a little wiser, at least in that respect.

I just ordered some stuff from Plaza Japan, and among them two reels of Infini lycra thread. One super fine for 1/72 aircraft, which should be 0.055mm, and the other white 40 denier, which should be 0.068mm. The black 40 denier was out of stock, maybe I will find a use for the white. I almost went mad when I rigged a Foliage green Airfix Tiger Moth, I find it extremely hard to see anything if the background is dark, so I might be forced to use white thread on dark coloured camouflaged aircraft, and paint the rigging afterwards. Civilian and interwar RAF planes are so much easier with their aluminium wings.

 

Did all British WWI aircraft have those flat wires for bracing, or was it dependent on the aircraft manufacturer. James Fahey's photos are very good for reference, from some of the photos you can clearly see that the wires are flat. On the other for instance Albatros has round cable, and it's clearly twisted. Was this German thing, that they used this kind of cable? What about French planes? Sorry about so many questions. 

I'm a bit envious of you who live in a populous civilized country, with so many aviation museums. Seeing a plane in your own eyes is so much better than looking at photos. It's almost impossible to assess something from a photograph, like the varying widths of the cables.

 

It's almost inevitable that one will grab the kit from somewhere you shouldn't, that's one reason I like using elastic thread. It's more forgiving in that regard.

I have to say that preferring 1/72 is half blessing, half curse. It would be so much easier to work with 1/48 or 1/32. And not to mention the higher quality and clever engineering. Now I'm building - i.e. struggling to build- Roden's 1/72 Bristol F2b. Imagine if enough of those who build mostly WW2 or modern aircraft started to build 1/72 biplanes. Then it could be profitable to release more kits like Eduard's 1/72 Fokker D. VII. I can't understand why WWI and interwar subjects are not more popular. 

[Paul Thompson]

    Not all. Not type specific, but time - during the course of the war, RAFwires were introduced, and eventually were used on virtually all RFC/RAF types for the main bracing (also sometimes but not always for internal bracing). It gets confusing because some types that were long in production went over to RAFwires later although they originally had cables (i.e. round, twisted like a rope from smaller strands). The DH2 is an example of such. Now, I find a date sized hole in my memory where I used to know roughly when simple cables started being replaced, but IIRC the BE2C was one of the first aircraft specified to have them. So RAF produced aircraft should have all had them after that, but other manufacturers wouldn't have followed suite immediately. The easiest way to tell for a particular type you don't know about would be to find a clear enough photo to distinguish whether or not the wire ends in a turnbuckle or not. RAF wire terminations look different enough that once you get your eye in (I suggest looking at modern repros that have been built traditionally to get a clear search image in your head) it doesn't take long to make a determination. This should sort it out when flatness or roundness isn't apparent.

 

    Other nations as far as I know only used braided cables (RAFwires are actually rods, made to the correct length, and tightened by built in adjusters in the terminators).  I'm sure that's true for German and Austro-Hungarian aircraft, but couldn't swear to it for Italian or French.  I'm fortunate enough to have Windsock Datafiles for all the subjects I'm likely to build, and  they often tell you what bracing was used, somewhere in the development history.

 

Paul.

[ckw]

2 hours ago, TheKinksFan said:

I can't understand why WWI and interwar subjects are not more popular. 

I think the inherent difficulties of assembling biplanes (or triplanes!) coupled with the challenge of rigging puts many people off. They're never going to be a quick build, and sales novices are always going to be small.

 

I'm a 1/72nd WWII guy, but that includes many stick 'n' string types - I must admit I always take a deep breath before tackling them!

 

Cheers

 

Colin

[TheKinksFan]

Thanks again @Paul Thompson for the information. You're right, if the photos are clear enough, it's quite easy to see the difference, and not only from the endings, but also the flatness or roundness of the wire is discernible. Interestingly, some seem to have a mix of flat wires and cable for bracing, like a restored BE2f, if it's historically accurate. 

 

The problem with trying to replicate the flatness with elastic thread, is that it's quite impossible to attach it without twists. Whether using flat thread or more round one, I'm not sure you can see the difference if you take one step back. When building you look from close range and have to use magnifying glasses, but when looking at the scale model as a whole, I think the main thing is not to use anything too thick or rough. There are many otherwise very good looking 1/72 biplanes that end up looking pretty awful because of that.

[TheKinksFan]

22 hours ago, bertielissie said:

If I made an error it was easy to clean up ------ unlike superglue which has caused marks on painted surfaces especially on biplanes. (because I lack the fine motor skills and 20/20 vision that other skilled modellers have).

It's very true that working with superglue is absolute PITA. Sometimes I have drilled small holes, put a small drop of CA on the thread end, and place it inside the tiny hole. It will look quite tidy when successful. The main problem is seeing clearle, although I use magnifying glasses, there are so many shadows and reflections that make it really hard. And when there are already many threads attached, often my eyes don't focus on the right one. 

I also use the small drop of CA method, and put accerelator on the thread. The consistency of the CA is the main issue, it's hard to find not too thick or too thin CA, that will for form a small drop on the tip of the tool.

[TheKinksFan]

11 hours ago, ckw said:

I think the inherent difficulties of assembling biplanes (or triplanes!) coupled with the challenge of rigging puts many people off. They're never going to be a quick build, and sales novices are always going to be small.

 

I'm a 1/72nd WWII guy, but that includes many stick 'n' string types - I must admit I always take a deep breath before tackling them!

I agree, that must the one of the main reasons. I've build models less than four years, and in the beginning I was convinced that I could never be able to finish a short run kit or a biplane. But after some time I started gradually try building some short run kits, and my first biplane was Airfix's Gladiator, which has some very nice engineering.

 

Also the WWI doesn't have the same kind of presence in popular culture and movies & TV shows that the WWII does, so unfortunately there is not much interest for the period.

 

I failed two times trying to build Italeri's CR.42. Third time I kind a succeeded, in the end after all kinds mishaps. Next builds I will first attach the middle cabane struts, and then the interplane struts are closest to wingtips, it's so difficult to get the top wing straight. IIRC you built Sword's Reggiane RE.2000, have you built a CR.42?

Edited September 29, 2023 by TheKinksFan

[Paul Thompson]

    Back around 1999, when I started modelling again, I came across the Aeroclub range and was initially taken with their 1/48th kits. At that time they carried two thicknesses of elastic thread, and although the larger was really too thick for 1/48th I used it because it was easy to untwist before glueing if you used through the wing holes at one end. I used it on an RE8 and a few Biffs, but stopped after a while once I accepted that the overscaleness outweighed the nice streamlined effect. Just as well, because that material turned out to be susceptible to perishing over time, and it has all since broken down. I don't recall if it was their own brand or just one they carried. The other I still use to this day so I guess is lycra based, and absolutely fine. Sometimes I've managed to stop it twisting, but mostly it's been a lost cause. I think the key is to ensure that the first end you anchor is at the right angle, then it's easier to decide if you've turned it enough when untwisting, and I'm sure someone with better dexterity and eyesight would manage it consistently.

 

    Since I mostly build in 1/72nd I've gone back to marked up invisible thread in through the wing holes, and not worrying about the nature of the original real wire.  Harder to get the holes at the right angle so the wire doesn't curve at the end, but the overal effect looks better I think, and it provides structural strength.

 

 

Paul.

[ckw]

1 hour ago, TheKinksFan said:

ave you built a CR.42?

Yes, the Italeri kit. I don't remember any real issues with construction but they were probably overshadowed by the challenge of freehand airbrushing the mult-colour mottle scheme! With clever engineering biplane kits needn't be so challenging as Airfix demonstrated with their new tool Swordfish. But I have a couple of Special Hobby kits in the stash (Vildebeest and Goblin) which I look at from time to time, shudder, and return to the stash! I know I can build them, but I'm going need to be in the right fram of mind to take them on.

 

BTW I favour real wire for rigging, attached with PVA. I find this a good balance between realism and practicality as you can make multiple attempts at attaching the wires without risking marking up the painted model. To my eyes at least, the distinction between round, braided or profiled wires is just not worth worrying about in 1/72nd. 

 

Cheers

 

Colin

[Ebf2k]

Quote

BTW I favour real wire for rigging, attached with PVA

What wire do you use?  How do you keep it stiff and straight?  How do you keep it in place while PVA is drying?

[Brandy]

If you're modelling in 1:72 don't worry about RAF wires. Rig the whole thing with 0.06mm fishing line. It's correct to scale and no-one will ever be able to see that the wires are not flat.

 Personally I would never use elasticated line. It is elasticated, and elastic perishes over time. Fishing mono filament doesn't.

 

Ian

[Brandy]

On 9/29/2023 at 1:52 PM, Paul Thompson said:

Harder to get the holes at the right angle so the wire doesn't curve at the end, but the overal effect looks better I think, and it provides structural strength.

Use thinner line and you will solve that problem.

 

Ian

[ckw]

On 07/10/2023 at 23:56, Ebf2k said:

What wire do you use?  How do you keep it stiff and straight?  How do you keep it in place while PVA is drying?

for 1/72nd I usually use 36 or 34 gauge nichrome wire. Cut a length and roll it on a flat surface with a steel rule. This removes any kinks and should result in a prefectly straight piece. I use dividers to measure the required distance and cut to length.

 

As for sticking, I usually attach the bottom of the wire into a tiny blob of PVA which I've let dry just a little. I then put a little blob on the other end and use gravity to let it fall into place. That's the basics, but sometimes I'll drill holes, sometimes it takes 2 or 3 goes to get it right, but that's fine as PVA cleans off with no trace left behind. The wire is so light it doesn't need much to hold it in place. Also, should an accident occur, you're less likely to take out a strut as might be the case with stronger glues.

 

As I say, this is for 1/72nd work and I've never had a problem with sagging wires, however, moving to larger scales it might become a problem.

 

2 hours ago, Brandy said:

If you're modelling in 1:72 don't worry about RAF wires.

 

You can get very small flat wires - I found them in vaping accessories on Amazon. But they're tricking to get to sit straight, and generally I wouldn't bother.

 

Cheers

 

Colin

[Macsporran]

I've been rigging WWI biplanes since the 70s, originally with stretched sprue, then invisible mono thread, through rolled wire and elastic thread and I would not recommend the last FWIW.

 

My preferred choice is chameleon fishing line in 2, 3 or 4lb strengths. The 2lb would be fine for 1/72. I find elastic thread (and I've tried Uschi, WNW Ezee, Infinity etc etc) all has a flattened profile and never looks right when it twists. Elastic thread also has a limited life and some older models show the thread has deteriorated (especially if subject to sunshine) and frayed or broken.

 

I use a .3mm drill in a cheap ebay USB minidrill, or a pin vice, to pierce through the wing etc. I run a fishing line through top wing and apply a spot of CA, Then run through lower wing hole and hang a clothes pg on the end to tension it and apply another drop of CA. with a very sharp razor blade I slice off the projecting bits and, with a little practice minimal clean-up is required (often under a roundel decal etc. A variation is to only half drill from under the upper wing. On larger scales you can half drill the holes and glue in a fusewire twisted loop for attachment points. In 1/32. some like to fold the wire back through a tiny brass collar (Albion Alloys) to simulate turnbuckles.

 

A benefit of the fishing line. or mono thread, is that, before application,  you can pull a length through a paint-soaked patch on filter paper to pre-colour. I use Revell Aqua Aluminium for this.

 

Each to his own, and there are lots of methods used very successfully by expert modellers, but this is my tuppence worth FWIW.

 

 

[Putty Animal]

I wonder.... 

 

[KevinK]

Well, you could do that, but wouldn't you rather rig a model?