Another Nieuport 24 question

[Suffolk Lad]

Hi Guys I'm wondering if any of our Nieuport aficionados can shed some light on the following.

I've recently bought the Roden Nieuport 24bis which as you probably know has parts for the 24 in as well. Also bought the second Datafile Special for reference and yesterday the Centenary Datafile 167 'Nieuport 24/27 at War'

Following Lances and Toby's recent inspirational models I'd like to do a silver aircraft, preferably an RFC one or if not possibly a Lafayette aircraft

Okay, here goes - Taking an RFC one as first choice - on page 40 of the Datafile Special, image 91 it shows Lt Clogstoun of 111 squadron in probably [sic] a 24 bis fitted with twin Lewis guns. Casting an eye down to the lower wing it gives the distinct impression that this is painted a dark colour. At first I thought this might be a trick of the light but then just recently I noticed, on page 31 image 64, a line up of both types with the nearest aircraft sporting a distinctly dark wing too. The caption refers to the possibility of this being a replacement wing from a painted aircraft.

My questions on this then is - Is this a coincidence on both aircraft from two different squadrons or was this possibly an intended scheme in some quarters ie featuring painted lower wings (as opposed to replacements) on some silver painted aircraft. I don't doubt Ray Rimell's annotation just that viewing the two images begs the question. If it is a replacement would it be right to think that it would have come from a camouflaged aircraft?

My second query concerns the struts and is a one I've pondered on for some time. It refers to the apparent 'binding' on the struts. I assume it is binding? If so I can fully understand the application on the rear struts as this is perpendicular to the grain and would provide a good resistance to splitting but I can't quite see the logic on the sloping forward struts. As I see it, for it to bind tightly,  it would have to have something to prevent it slipping, eg small notches cut in or possibly small protrusions to prevent slippage when tightening it but to my mind even then it offers little to aid reinforcing. Obviously it's the way it is from an aerodynamic point of view so is it just cosmetic or is it really meant to add strength?

So - is it, in actual fact, a cord 'binding' and if so, and purely as a matter of interest, anyone have any idea how it held itself in place.

As said the first preference is the Clogstoun aircraft so if you know of the whereabouts of any other images I'd appreciate hearing about those too.

If Xan, Borsos, DaveCCW or any other  of our Nieuport fans can help here it really would be much appreciated 

Thanks in advance

Kind Regards - Tug

[uncletony]

My second query concerns the struts and is a one I've pondered on for some time. It refers to the apparent 'binding' on the struts. I assume it is binding? If so I can fully understand the application on the rear struts as this is perpendicular to the grain and would

and perpendicullar (more or less) to the grain on the front struts as well! (the V wasn't cut out of a single board!)

[Suffolk Lad]

 

(the V wasn't cut out of a single board!)

Errr, no, of course not Bo, and even if it was (very unlikely I would have thought)  the question is still a valid one surely?

I'm assuming the grain would be along the length of the strut (which  I believe would be connected to the front strut at their base) The binding then, on the front strut is not perpendicular to any grain but the question still remains about its efficacy at such an angle 'to the strut' and how its kept in place - just try wrapping a cord tightly across a similar section at such an angle and I'm sure you'll see my reasoning.

I'm not intending to be dismissive here Bo, just don't quite see your logic. Thanks for the input though.

A Happy New Year to you and all others looking in

Regards - Tug

[Suffolk Lad]

Well I can't quite see that either RB

If it's as you say then why would such a structural member as the front strut have a grain other than running along it's length.

This isn't about grain direction - It's about why the front binding is at an angle to the strut itself and how it is kept in place. If this is binding then in another world it's considered 'whipping' (which is what you describe) and that can only be applied at right angles to the object being whipped unless it's movement is restricted in some way to prevent slippage. To do it at an angle creates immediate self releasing 'loops' at even the slightest amount of slackening.  As you rightly say any form of notch would raise a stress point which is why I ask the question - if it is binding how is it held in place, at that angle, on that front strut.

On the scale of things this isn't too important model wise - it's mainly one of pure interest though I would like to replicate it on the model.  'Mechanically speaking, I just don't see the logic of it though.

I appreciate your replies guys but please don't fixate on this matter too much - I'd much rather however hear something knowledgeable about those painted lower wings 

Kind Regards - Tug

[uncletony]

The stuff is glued to the strut. The angle is a nod to aerodynamics (however ineffectual).

[Suffolk Lad]

Ergo - cosmetic as thought then Bo - my thanks  but is it a cord binding or some kind of strap?

Now about that wing  said he hopefully

Regards - Tug

[Suffolk Lad]

Well after a bit of  further searching I found a completely new site (to me) with some very good close ups of a 23 restoration. This had never come up in searches before on my previous questions.

Assuming it has been restored to original specification it would appear that this is some kind of cloth banding perhaps - zooming in certainly gives that impression. The way that has been applied around that forward strut at that angle still makes my brain wince as to how (if it's wound on that is) - I'm going to go for self adhesive strips and done with it 




Some of the other pics absolutely confirmed the answer to my previous question about the make up of the forward fuse sides too so that was a real bonus 




Just that wing then  Aw! come on guys - surely you're not going to let me paint one wing only to tell me after its built the other should have been too 

Kind regards - Tug

[uncletony]

Tug, I'm not a noop expert -- we have those here and hopefully one will chime in soon -- but my understanding has always been these are cloth reinforcements doped onto the struts. Ray Rimmel is always bemoaning kit makers who depict these as overly raised. I don't think they were cord windings..

[uncletony]

so a little digging around, came across this, may be of interest:

Yes this is the first I have heard of Red tapes on the V struts. The latest research by Allan Toelle (I believe he examined an actual piece of a Nieuport 16 strut with the tape) was that the tapes were a horizon blue color similar to the French uniforms. This ws the same color used to outline the wings and tail surface. Also metal parts like struts and undercarrage were painted this same color similar to the paint used on the Adrian helmets. Profiles showing this scheme are shown in the Windsock Lafayette Flyers book as well as a couple of issues of Windsock magazines 2 or 3 years ago.
Dave

earlier in the thread Dan San Abbot refers to them as "natural linen cord bindings" but honestly I'd put whatever Allan Toelle says on this subject ahead of DSA.

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45283

[uncletony]

This is from the USAF museum repro N 28, the reproduction is regarded as very high quality:



Original Bebe at Le Bourget -- I took some photos of this as well, will try to dig them out:

[uncletony]

I did some digging around in Flight magazine, didn't come across a direct reference to what exactly Nieuport struts were wrapped with, despite many technical descriptions of Nieuport designs, so my thinking is that is was pretty unremarkable to the writers of the day. Here linen cloth reinforcements are mentioned on another type:

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1917/1917%20-%200200.html

You might find this interesting; it is a translation of German reports of the Nieuports published in Flight in 1917 :

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1917/1917%20-%200884.html

[lcarroll]

Tug,
    I used Tamiya Tape for my "wraps" and applied thin CA after installing them in the same orientation as Bo's photo of the La Bourget Bebe. I went through the same logic as you describe; applying the tapes at an angle (to the strut's axis) as illustrated not only made no sense structurally but also made me nervous about how long they would last on the model without starting to peel off! I spent some considerable time in the books and on-line to no avail, all refs pointed to the tapes being aligned to the Aircraft's fore and aft axis, not the strut's orientation as installed. Getting the little buggers installed so was a challenge, as you point out they want to slide perpendicular to the struts axis, and it took several attempts for each one.
    As for the wing colours I have no definitive answer either, I hope one of our Noop experts can help! The switching/replacing of wings is a possibility but would depend on the maintenance "trail"; were RFC Nieuports repaired or supplied through RFC Depots or the through the French Logistical System?
Cheers,
Lance

[Suffolk Lad]

Bo - my sincere appreciation for your input  I shall take great pleasure at perusing those  links.

Looking at the N28 restoration pic and that of the Belgian 23 I would agree that cloth it is. I had always assumed it was meant for reinforcing but there seems little value in that - possibly it was just a Nieuport 'thing'.

The light blue as mentioned by 'Dave' in your quote is confirmed in the Belgian pics which also has the hall marks of a careful restoration. (Would that be Dave Calhoun - Dave CCW  BTW ?)

Hopefully others will look in and comment (especially about the wing colour  ) - but again my thanks to you for your interest and help.

Best Regards - Tug

Your post has just come up Lance - thanks to you too. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one to think about these 'wraps'. Now I know, I'm happy to go ahead and use something self adhesive - probably the vinyl sheet I've used before.

If all else fails I'll do the wing as suggested in the Datafile - it'll no doubt make a conversation piece if nothing else 

Tug

PS Have just got the top wing on the SE5 

[Borsos]

Hi Tug,
I think I do have some information about the wing question. I am not at my library but will post it asap!
Borsos

[uncletony]

I had always assumed it was meant for reinforcing but there seems little value in that - possibly it was just a Nieuport 'thing'.

Certainly the purpose is reinforcing -- but it's like a story I once heard by the guy who owns the Victor Mousetrap company (biggest manufacturer of mousetraps in the US): he is constantly receiving ideas for a "better mousetrap" and in fact the designs he gets are often demonstrably superior in some way or another versus the old board & spring trap -- but the fact is the problem of killing mice just isn't difficult enough (they are stupid, have very small ranges, etc.) to warrant changing production to "a better mousetrap." The dumb old spring mousetrap does a perfectly good job of killing mice.

So, you are quite right that from a mechanical standpoint gluing the wrapping obliquely with respect to grain is suboptimal, but I would argue that it was plenty good enough, and either aesthetically or because the designers perceived a slight aero advantage, they choose "adequate" versus optimal.

Glued wrapping, even obliquely in respect to the run of the grain, is going the help keep the strut from splintering at the forces involved. If you do an image search on "struts" on a site like aviadejavu.ru (a compendium of zillions of aircraft images, quite possibly not all legitimately obtained), you'll find hundreds of period drawings of strut ends and fittings -- that was where the engineering problem of the day was centered -- and not the integrity of the middle of the strut -- just not that big of a problem, like killing the poor little mouse.