Advice Needed. Should Wing on Morane Saulnier N be flush on fuselage? Maybe not?

[ebergerud]

Help from wise heads needed. I'm building a Special Hobby Morane Saulnier N. It's a limited run kit and has it's share of eccentricities. (I'll do a proper build log tomorrow.) Right now I'm stuck. While trying to put on the wing it's quite obvious that there's going to be a considerable gap between the front and rear leading/trailing edge of the wing and the fuselage - unless I do some very serious surgery. Every model I've ever built has had the wing flush against the fuselage - many don't want a seam. But I just couldn't figure how Special Hobby could have gotten things this wrong so I started looking around. I'm now wondering if the gaps are indeed there. These photos are from a full size replica:
replicawng by Eric Bergerud, on Flickr
1916-morane-saulnier by Eric Bergerud, on Flickr
Here's a good view of a very nicely done kit of the Special Hobby Morane N: a slight gap on the rear is clear:
MS3 by Eric Bergerud, on Flickr
The real plane photos are not very clear - but here's one close-up on the front. I could persuade myself there's a gap on the wing/fuselage:
Morane by Eric Bergerud, on Flickr
I've made a lot of airplanes but most come from other wars. This is kind of a quandry. I do want to proceed with the model, but I also don't want to cut the wing up to achieve a nice tight fit on an airplane that didn't have a nice tough fit. This plane had wing warping - no idea what that could mean in the realm of wing design.
Help appreciated.
Eric

[smperry]

The root rib is at a bit of an angle so the wing panel can fit flush. I built a flying MoS N based on the machine in your last picture. It used genuine wing warping for lateral control. The only demands wing warping put on the structure were a lighter frame with the rib to rear spar joints not so tight, Having a gap between wing panel and fuselage bridged only by the spars was popular in early aircraft and was seen less frequently as the war went on. I do not recall seeing drawings or photos of a Type N that had a gap.
sp

[ebergerud]

Variation on the theme. On the third photo - the pic of the MS N from the Large Planes site - has a strip running right along the wing root for about 2/3d of the length along the fuselage. There's nothing like that on the kit - but I wonder if that couldn't be covering a kind of gap.
Again it's going to require some serious sanding to get a flush fit - I'd feel a little dumb if the wing didn't fit flush.
Eric

[IanB]

One thing that is absolutely certain on almost all of these early aircraft is that the wing to fuselage joints should not be seamless. They were built as separate items from the fuselage, not as a one-piece unit as on later aircraft, and could be removed for transport. There may very well have been a gap, there was on many of this aircraft's contemporaries. I built my 1:72 one with the wings fitted close but not filled and faired in.

HTH.

Ian

[petrov27]

page 31 of the Albatross Datafile for the MS N has a couple views slightly above of a pilot sitting in the cockpit and it looks to me that there is a gap between the wing and fuselage, though it does not look quite as pronounced as that Alamy stock photo shown above (but maybe it is just the angle hard to say)

[Europapete]

Morning all, yes Eric, leave a gap. The wings were built as separate units and bolted on. They were readily removeable for repairs or transport. Regards, Pete in RI

[enathan]

Maybe this will help. There doesn't seem to be a noticeable gap, certainly not as wide as in the replica photos.

[petrov27]

Maybe this will help. There doesn't seem to be a noticeable gap, certainly not as wide as in the replica photos.

ha - that is one of the pics from the datafile I mentioned - to my eye there is a gap there.

[RLWP]

Which machine gun this that?

Richard

[petrov27]

Which machine gun this that?

Richard

Hotchkiss 1914 I think?

[RLWP]

Which machine gun this that?

Richard

Hotchkiss 1914 I think?

Thank you

I have suddenly discovered I need a French Morane-Saulnier N

Richard

[RLWP]

Hotchkiss 1914 I think?

I have just checked my Harry Woodman book - it's a Hotchkiss 1909

The 1914 had a different cover on the recoil mechanism and seems to feed from the other side via a drum and belt.

Even so - thank you for making me go and look it up!

Richard

[ebergerud]

Thanks very much all. A slight gap it is. Seam filling is everyone's favorite task - right up there with shaping PE parts. (I've stumbled on a pretty good cure for the seams - Tamiya makes a Light Curing Putty that's based on a dental adhesive. You apply it under ambient light and then turn on a hefty lamp or put it in the sun and it cures in 2 minutes max. It sands very well. It's pretty thin and does not appear to shrink.) I'd bet a lot of time is spent on removing seams that shouldn't be removed. Tamiya just made a terrific (as usual) 1/48 kit of the BF109G. In the instructions it points out that there's a seam running across the entire spine of the plane and warns modelers to leave it alone. I checked some online plans for the ME110 and the same appears to be the case there.
As far as the MG goes a reviewer of the kit on IPMS says it is and notes that if you want to build a RFC version you'd have to hunt up a Vickers - or don't tell anyone.
Eric

[RLWP]

As far as the MG goes a reviewer of the kit on IPMS says it is and notes that if you want to build a RFC version you'd have to hunt up a Vickers - or don't tell anyone.
Eric

Unfortunately, it is that kind of details that draws me in. An aeroplane with a Hotchkiss 1909 attracts me, I have several models with common or garden Vickers guns 

Richard

[Europapete]

Also if you need a real quick gun reference or I.D. jump over to the Gaspatch site and scroll through.