Author Topic: Postwar DH.9a ‘Ninak’  (Read 16506 times)

Offline aliluke

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
Re: Postwar DH.9a ‘Ninak’
« Reply #90 on: September 25, 2019, 07:11:18 PM »
Hi Guy
A wee follow up for a constructive discussion here. It has been talked about before...You use a simulation of turnbuckles on both ends of the same rigging line. In my thoughts you would fix to an eye at one end of a line and use a turnbuckle at the other end. So a turnbuckle at both ends doesn't add up for me. I stand to be corrected but my simple logic has fixed at one end and tensioned at the other?

Cheers
Alistair
It ain't a hobby if you have to hurry.

Bughunter

  • Guest
Re: Postwar DH.9a ‘Ninak’
« Reply #91 on: September 26, 2019, 02:12:09 AM »
You use a simulation of turnbuckles on both ends of the same rigging line. In my thoughts you would fix to an eye at one end of a line and use a turnbuckle at the other end. So a turnbuckle at both ends doesn't add up for me. I stand to be corrected but my simple logic has fixed at one end and tensioned at the other?
Alistair, I don't want to criticize Gisbod's build, but if you want to rig a DH.9a correct, there are no turnbuckles at all on many rigging lines.

I just checked some museums pictures, and there are some rigging ropes with turnbuckles, e.g. the ones starting at the front beside the engines.
But the main wing rigging, as often seen on british aircrafts, are done with flat streamlined "RAF wires" without turnbuckles. That's why the WNW manual say on page 16 for the blue rigging to use material of 0.1x0.3mm.
In real a RAF wire was a flat profiled steel rods with thread at the end, mounted in terminals.
Here a picture of the WNW scale documentation (here are additional securing plates visible):


So I think Guy wanted to show the terminals by this brass pipes, but in my opinion the rigging material should be more wide as the recommended size.


Sorry Guy, do not want to hijack your thread!

Cheers,
Frank
« Last Edit: September 26, 2019, 05:36:03 AM by Bughunter »

Offline Gisbod

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2438
Re: Postwar DH.9a ‘Ninak’
« Reply #92 on: September 26, 2019, 07:36:26 AM »
Not at all Frank,

My rigging is only meant to represent an impression of rigging rather than be technically correct. If I could do flat rigging I would but I can’t think of how to represent it correctly or what to use. Bob’s buckles just work for me! They also have the advantage of acting as real rigging and add tension and strength to the structure.

I’ve yet to see a build with flat rigging done well, but I’d love to see and hear of other methods..

Guy
“Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth -
Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.”

P.O. John Gillespie Magee 1941

Online Juan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2457
  • All gave some, some gave all.
Re: Postwar DH.9a ‘Ninak’
« Reply #93 on: September 26, 2019, 07:57:52 AM »
Your canvass, your art, and beautiful it is Guy.

Offline calumet

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Postwar DH.9a ‘Ninak’
« Reply #94 on: September 27, 2019, 07:11:37 AM »
This is one very fine Ninak!!

Cheers
Hans

Offline Dave in Dubai

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 520
  • Beyond the blue horizon
Re: Postwar DH.9a ‘Ninak’
« Reply #95 on: September 27, 2019, 04:09:19 PM »
Guy,

You can get a white metal replacement tail-skid part from Scale Aircraft Conversions for the DH-9, it is a wee bit stronger than the kit part and is a drop in fit.

Cheers

Dave