The Wight Type A.1 Improved Navyplane (1/72nd scale)

[RAGIII]

Amazing work!
RAGIII

[PJ Fisher]

Howard Wright who was White's chief designer on the various Wight planes

That's not confusing at all 

hahahaha!

[PJ Fisher]

Hi again all, 
Wanted to share another update on our design progress, this time on the floats.  Here again we were lucky to have an original patent drawing to work from. Though it differs somewhat from those seen on operational planes, it gives a good basis to work from.  After some fiddling and several Youtube tutorials on how to use Fusion 360, my brother was able to visually match rather well the 3d rendering to the period images and sketches we've collected.  This is a fairly clear photo of the prototype A.1 version (and its forest of struts) from the Olympia Show, including the wee 1/16 model on the floor aside it.

. .


Later the Navyplane's twin floats were fitted with steerable rudders.  These managed to print just fine.  We'll likely make the rudders a little thinner but for now they provide at least a decent placeholder.  The great thing about 3d modelling is you can always go back and improve your work. However, printing the floats wasn't as straightforward as anticipated.  They're large enough that it's wasteful to print them as one solid 'cast', so to save on material we've made them hollow.  In order for them to cure properly weep holes were needed to drain resin residue.  More fiddling and we were able to put the weep holes where the inner struts will attach.  You can also see a few tiny holes which are pre-positioned for the top struts.  These will be joined by metal pins.  After sorting out all that the next problem was another graining effect left on the surface from the print process.  You can easily see the distracting grain even after a coat of black primer. This is sandable but still undesirable, particularly with the finer details such as the strakes on the underside would be at risk of losing their definition during the sanding process.  Ultimately we're able to achieve a satisfactory print by changing their positioning during the print process.  Continued compromise.

.

Alas, we don't have any decent images of what the circular access caps atop each float looks like.  Ours currently have two simple recessed dots matching a drawing we found.  But maybe they should be raised?  Or a different shape altogether like a petrol tank cap?  Not sure what Sopwith or Short was using but perhaps something similar?  If anyone has any insight we'd be grateful to have it!

[IanB]

This is very impressive work, and a type I'd not heard of before.
The ribbing effect on printing can be reduced with the anti-aliasing settings but it's not a simple 1 is most 8 is least! I have found that somewhere around 3 or 4 works nicely but you will need to play with it for each print.

Ian

[lone modeller]

Excellent update. The compromises that you are having to make are no greater than one would normally find on a injection moulded or resin kit so there is nothing to complain of there.

Stephen.

[PJ Fisher]

The ribbing effect on printing can be reduced with the anti-aliasing settings but it's not a simple 1 is most 8 is least! I have found that somewhere around 3 or 4 works nicely but you will need to play with it for each print.

Hey, thanks Ian, much appreciated.  My brother tells me that he has it 'set to 1 with an image blur of 2'.  More experimenting with the settings needed for sure.  And seeing your work is most inspiring.

[PJ Fisher]

Hello once again everyone.  Thought I'd share some images of our progress with the nacelle.  Once again, we were lucky to source period drawings of both the exterior and interior, including the instrument layout with a glimpse of the leather-upholstered seats (said to have armored bottoms), the air canister that jump-started the engine, and the retractable rope ladder. 
.


Designing this boxlike construction of this component was simpler compared to the complexity of the floats and the wings.  Thanks to the available literature we scored info on the nacelle joinery, metal fitments, and even species of timber that were employed.  This is part of the fun for me... recreating a rare bird using whatever data I can find to bring it back to life. Translating that into 3d is the next stage of fun.  The software we're using allows one to assign appearance textures such as woodgrain, differing metal types, fabrics, etc.  This helps to visualize how the third-stage actual build will look.  You can see below we designed a version with the fabric side coverings, and a version without.  We also did a version with the upper metal cowling being detachable (to allow ease of access for interior details).  From the perspective of designing an actual model for others to enjoy it's rather easy to print any number of parts separately... but how much is too much?

. .

Now here's a debatable topic - despite the countless hours of research, learning the software, designing each component, and perfecting the printing process... it still sorta feels like cheating if the whole plane just builds itself for us and there's no old-fashioned assembly required to the various parts. Most model airplanes come with two closed fuselage halves that simply get glued together.  So is it 'cheating' if we print this nacelle as one open constructed unit?  I noticed that the IPMS National competition rules declare that 3D-printed planes cannot qualify as being 'scratchbuilt', yet it also seems they have no stand-alone category for 3d builders to feature their creations.  Anyway, this particular build has so many struts and rigging wires to look forward to maybe having a single-print nacelle will fairly offset an inherent level of tedium and provide some strength to a quite fragile 1/72 contraption.  A hobby should be enjoyable but there should always be challenge, right?  What do you all think?

. .

Truth be told, just separating each component from the spaghetti of support sprues we've assigned to them without inadvertently breaking something is a challenge for me!  Yet another example of how one must compromise in 1/72 scale to find the sweet spot between historical accuracy vs. modelling feasibility.  The particular resin (in grey) that we prefer because of its crispness of detail is quite brittle, so we've been trying other types (notice the off-white and yellow prints) that have a bit more flexibility but with gummier detail.  During my experiment to apply some Bare Metal Foil to the nacelle cowling (shown here; I thought it'd be cool to reveal in spots after chipping some grey paint off it), it didn't take long during the burnishing process for me to crush the side and crack a few spars.  We're learning each day as we go.  Fortunately haven't yet hit any roadblock too troublesome to overcome.  Next post will include some of the smaller detail parts we've printed.  Thanks for looking in!

[Tim Mixon]

PJ.  First of all, Outstanding work on this unique subject!  It’s a real treat to see the design process and level of detail you and your brother are achieving.   
My thought on a one piece nancelle is that initially I like the idea. But then I’m thinking how would I be able to paint all that detail realistically?  A conventional model with two fuselage halves makes reaching all areas with a brush much more readily.
 However you decide, I wish you two great success. 

[PrzemoL]

Wow, what a project.
These new technologies bring modelling to a completely different level. Will be watching with great interest.

[enathan]

I don't know much about 3D printing but I see what you mean about 'cheating'. This seems more like a method of producing kits than scratch building models, but it certaily adds some exciting options of self producing subjects that would never be comercially produced, like you demonstrate here with your very interesting Wight.
Actually, my first reaction was - now that you've done all the reserch and design, I'd love to have one myself...
As you know, many 'standard' resin kits come with a one piece fuselage.
I'll keep following with interest.

[PJ Fisher]

Thanks for the feedback everyone!

Enathan - Well said.  This undertaking has given me a new level of appreciation for all the independent companies out there that design models for other people to enjoy.  We are going to shift our approach with this in mind.

Tim - Also a good point about paintability (particularly in 1/72).  Case in point is the instrument panel for this plane.  In addition to the drawing we also are lucky have one or two images that partly show the instrument panels as they looked in service, including this great shot that rediscovered a few years ago: https://aegeanairwar.com/cramp/photographs/cr12.  We've even learned the names of some of the manufacturers of the instrument dials used and who supplied the fabric and dope.  Researching and rendering the historical accuracy is a real rabbit hole to dive into.  But there is a truth to 'getting lost in the details'... technology enables us to super-detail the printout, but painting it all is another challenge.  Note how minute the brass instrument bezels are compared to the size of the paint brush.  I suppose we could print all the dials, etc. separately?  My brother did just acquire a photo-etch machine, so maybe that's an alternative option.

. . .

But it's all fun.  Some other nacelle details we've completed are the side-mounted radiators, the petrol tank (still a work in progress), and my only design contribution so far - the air canisters (amazingly the Imperial War Museum has an example of one in their online collection to work from):

   

All this raises another good question - what's your favorite part of modeling... building or painting?

[RichieW]

More incredible 3d design work (hope that's the correctc terminology) this is going to be an exquisitely detailed miniature. It must be so exciting for you to see the pieces printed with so much definition.

My favourite part of modelling is the building process but it did used to be the painting and final finishing.

I think the popularity of bringing old kits up to modern standards might suggest a lot of people enjoy a challenge. It's probaly a tough balancing act between having a modeller thinking how much of an enjoyable challenge a build was and on the other hand thinking how much they struggled and thinking never again.

Richie

[torbiorn]

Oh goodness. Those well-defined little edges are *sharp*. I share your apprehension (if I got the gist correctly) regarding 3D, but the incredible detail that can be achieved I feel it would be no going back once the plunge has been taken. I too bought a printer some time ago, but fear I’ll loose interest in modelling if I start using it…

Regarding scratch or no scratch, I would be inclined to agree with those rules that models containing significant 3D-printed parts should be in the same category - but then again, who cares? I don’t bother with competitions, I like to create for creation’s sake. The important thing is whether enjoyment comes out of it. And this one looks like it’s going to be be stunning.

[Tim Mixon]

PJ. I think I may have misunderstood your intentions. I see now you have a separate instrument panel as well as other interior details. I was thinking they were going to be printed all together in one piece! 

[PJ Fisher]

Thanks again for the feedback, friends.  Here's an update on our wing work.  Because of their unusually long span and the delicacy inherent to 1/72 scale, this has proven the most frustrating stage for me so far.  Again, one can see how serious the challenge of just freeing the wings from their support sprues is without breaking any of the ribs or spars. Partly because i'm not using appropriate snippers, I've had a low success rate.  My little workspace has become a boneyard littered with failures.  I need to invest in one of those fancy ultrasonic sprue cutters while my brother tinkers with how he formats the print process.

. .


But the overall the wings are looking sweet.  These are all still test prints but the sweep and dihedral that my brother plotted are shining through here.  We're still sorting out how to model the trailing edge, and we're refining the details to resemble the original structure as close as possible, but I'm happy with how realistic this is looking for 1/72.
 


Meanwhile, I've been experimenting with wing surface coverings. My goal is to naturally achieve that translucent effect many of us spend so much time mimicking with paint. I'm in uncharted territory so I'm trying different techniques and media. My first thought was to apply vellum paper with a spray-on adhesive followed by a perimeter seal CA glue.  Early attempts on the ailerons, twin rudders, and elevator came out promising (note where I had to patch the broken plastic). Once the first sides were dry I trimmed around the edges then applied the second side.  It soon became apparent that the spray adhesive left gummy, stringy particles but the CA seal partly saturated the paper and was sandable to good effect:

    .


The last two photo show the translucency of  the grey-toned vellum paper when held up to light!  Some of that adhesive gum can be seen though.  Good potential here, but it's actually too transparent after it absorbs the glue, as the darker grey-plastic frame is visible even when light is not shining through.  Better if I can find a linen-colored paper but paint will be required regardless.  More experimenting to follow: