Warbirds from paper plane plans

smiling albert

Active member
This looks interesting.
One day would like to build a ww1 plane.
Will the wings be 2 layers thick like nerdnics?
Now in virtual lockdown have got a little more time to work on me 109.
Stay safe everyone
 

JakeTheSloth

Active member
This looks interesting.
One day would like to build a ww1 plane.
Will the wings be 2 layers thick like nerdnics?
Now in virtual lockdown have got a little more time to work on me 109.
Stay safe everyone
If by 2 layers you mean fold on trailing edge then yes, but I'm not going for scale wings aka NerdNic's speedwing, but undercamber. It's just easier to make, and I'm still not sure how will it fit together.
And yeah, the lockdown gives me a lot of time as well, but the problem is I'm low on foam and I'm kinda afraid to go to DIY store and buy some.
Stay safe as well brother.
 

leaded50

Legendary member
@JakeTheSloth , yeah i found that out, the Zarkov models are good. I testmade a warplane from his plans, and very nice fit of the parts.. I will in fact use it reworked/ changed in size for a 1200mm warbird build
 

leaded50

Legendary member
@JakeTheSloth , the Yokosuka D4Y-2s, with inline engine, not the radial.
 

Attachments

  • yokosuka_d4y__judy_.jpeg
    yokosuka_d4y__judy_.jpeg
    5.4 KB · Views: 0

leaded50

Legendary member
Quite unusal pick, most people tend to build zeros and hiens. Please share your progress :)
Its done in own thread.
Yokosuka D4Y-s was one of the fastest dive bombers of the war, particularly the D4Y4 whom Max Gadney said was the "fastest dive-bomber of World War II" and that it was "faster than the zero" ........ but yes most wanna build Zeros eg, because its a more well known aeroplane, supposedly also have a more "in" status. ;)
The design of the Yokosuka is far more nice, than the eg. Zero.
 
Last edited:

JakeTheSloth

Active member
Yeah Zero is more known, but I'm not fully agreeing with statement that D4Y design is nicer than A6M's. I mean, those planes all look cool, at least I'm feeling like that. For me, for example, Fw-190A looks better than Bf-109E, Tempest Mk.V looks better than any Spitfire, N1K Shiden and Ki-61 Hien looks cooler than A6M2 but not A6M5, but the fact is I'd love to build and fly all of them. But that's just my opinion, you know. There's a saying in Poland, where I live - "opinion is like a$$ - everyone has their own" :D
 

leaded50

Legendary member
@JakeTheSloth .."opinion is like a$$ - everyone has their own" Nooooo :LOL::ROFLMAO::LOL::LOL:

A6M´s have a radial engine.. thats what i didnt wanted now in a warbird. The fatty agressive streamlined front and long sleek "fastback coupe" cockpit gave what i like.
( i agree on the Tempest though ;) and Ki-61 was evaluated..))
 

JakeTheSloth

Active member
Okay I'm back. I eventually resized Fokker to 80cm wingspan in order to make the 10' prop as scale as possible, I printed out plans but I don't have time nor red tape currently :/.
Albert - I have Zarkov's Bf-109 in pdf, quite more complex than Marek's , but the fit is excellent
Leaded - if you need to modify paper model plans and it's Zarkov's or Marek's it's very easy to do - those are vectorized graphics, which you can easily modify with inkscape, a free programme similiar to Adobe Illustrator
 

smiling albert

Active member
Hi
Thanks,yes it would be good to have Zarkov,s version.
I am hoping the ones you already sent me will work ( been busy scaling them and nearly ready )but it always good to have a backup.
Thanks
 
Last edited:

leaded50

Legendary member
Ive build a few planes from just pictures/drawings from top, front/rear and side, to get the meaurements to scale correct everything. I didnt printed much plans either, but scaled it on computer to the correct size i wanted, and used ruler to get measurements direct from screen on some. Learned fast that adjustments on parts is a "needed standard" to get everything fit best as possible.

To build from papermodel plans is possible, and as you said @JakeTheSloth , use of eg. inkscape to rework plans does it easyer. What i did see, eg. on my warbird build, was the prop-line on the papermodel plans didnt match correctly related by eg. tailfin stabilizer/and then the main wing incident/mount. Easy to see and adjust when controlled by drawings/pictures, and then adjust though.
Papermodel plans dont have the internal structure we need as an RC, and how to make that, to fit best possible, together with strenghtness is the "clue" to use such plans best. As on some papermodel plans, the formers outer shape is there, but not correct inside cut., and even the canopy part on formers can be there, who needed cut of (without any line to follow) to make a nice round-shaped fuselage by it self, and canopy as own part.
Still, im quite happy with how my Yokosuka get builded from such plans. :)

My Staggerwing i did build from the picture under, and in fact it was enough, together with some extra pictures of the plane, to see some details. Picture scaled to what i want on computer, and measurements from screen. That was not a "fully Master Series" build style. The fuselage was mainly done in 5 parts , cowl/sides/top/bottom with curved shapes, and put together.

To make some plans for other to follow, isnt easy though, because of all individually adjustments on parts... if scratchbuild "on the go", or by papermodel plans.
 

Attachments

  • beech_stagger.png
    beech_stagger.png
    2.3 MB · Views: 0
  • 097.png
    097.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 0
Last edited:

JakeTheSloth

Active member
That's a cool looking plane, and hence you mentioned this build - as I said before I want to build fokker D.VI, which is biplane as well, so I need some advice - what material did you use for spars and how did you build the wing? I can see the top is full and bottom is "flitetest undercamber" alike, but I'm curious if you glued bottom surface flat to top one or left cavity for spar etc.
 

leaded50

Legendary member
That's a cool looking plane, and hence you mentioned this build - as I said before I want to build fokker D.VI, which is biplane as well, so I need some advice - what material did you use for spars and how did you build the wing? I can see the top is full and bottom is "flitetest undercamber" alike , but I'm curious if you glued bottom surface flat to top one or left cavity for spar etc.

Wings has wooden paintstick approx 1/2 length as strength support, and foamspar all the way. Bottom of wing is flat, typical FT type, with oversurface a bit more for aelirons/ evt. flaps, and not all the way out, as FT "underchamber at ends.
Here is picture of underside, both wings are alike. Since if gonna make it 4 or 5ch, alerions are on top wing, flaps on underwing.
Wing do have a profileshape by spar yes, its not flat on top.
the spar is a one "laying" foamboard, with a laying paint stick extra, some of the wingspan., as on the drawing:
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0133.JPG
    DSC_0133.JPG
    75.1 KB · Views: 0
  • wingpart.jpg
    wingpart.jpg
    6.9 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:

JakeTheSloth

Active member
Wings has wooden paintstick approx 1/2 length as strength support, and foamspar all the way. Bottom of wing is flat, typical FT type, with oversurface a bit more for aelirons/ evt. flaps, and not all the way out, as FT "underchamber.
Here is picture of underside, both wings are alike. Since if gonna make it 4 or 5ch, alerions are on top wing, flaps on underwing.
Wing do have a profileshape by spar yes, its not flat on top.
the spar is a one "laying" foamboard, with a laying paint stick extra, some of the wingspan., as on the drawing:
Cool! Thank you very much, it's very useful info ;)
 

leaded50

Legendary member
papermodel plans was the start for this... still awaiting more foamboards to get wings ready though...... 1150mm wingspan. servoless retracts, eg. 3536 1200 motor will be used.
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0130.JPG
    DSC_0130.JPG
    119.6 KB · Views: 0