WNW Pfalz DIII

[AROTH]

Well now I've seen it I'll bin mine and I encourage Bob to destroy his too.

It was bad enough having that half mm gap on the Junkers aileron. My enjoyment of the hobby is now  like ashes in my mouth.

There's too many stitches per rib tape too....

/quote]

Shoot! I have 3 kits plus all those extra decal sheets - I'm gonna go bury them in my backyard tonite so no one will see me with them. 

[kornbeef]

It is a difficult to see but when you do hard to miss thing.

Every kit has flaws, some oversights, some due to constraints, nothings perfect. I for one expect them to. If someone expects a perfect kit then I suggest they give up the hobby. I'm not having a dig at anyone (well maybe one well known doomsayer on Aeroscale who thankfully steers clear of WW1)

I imagine if this had come to light to WNW before the kits release it would have been addressed. It still builds into a beautiful  model and would give the likes of our illustrious Bo weeks of fun correcting it. (joke Bo )

£50.00 compared to £100 plus for a Tamiya Spitfire that doesn't even have armament in its gun bays... Flaws or not its a No brainer to me anyway.

Keith (plodding through his new CII.. Flaws and all)

[bobs_buckles]

Well now I've seen it I'll bin mine and I encourage Bob to destroy his too.

It was bad enough having that half mm gap on the Junkers aileron. My enjoyment of the hobby is now  like ashes in my mouth.

There's too many stitches per rib tape too....

NEVER!!!!!!!
lol


Bob Von StickingwithmyPfalz

[Kampf doppeldecker]

Hi All,
Nicely seen and illustrated Bo, as you say, once seen hard to 'unsee'.
Of course, every kit has it's flaws, no-one, including myself expects perfection.  But what is expected is a decent representation of the aircrafts salient points.   The wingtip 'thing' is very noticeable once seen, all it requires really is a little time looking at photos and taking in detail.  As said, the taper started from two ribs out from the aileron root on upper and lower surfaces, less on the lower surface, all this of course creating tip Washout.
The aerofoil section obviously changed with all this and it is possible to construct approximate co-ordinates using various methods, the section from centreline to a point two ribs out from aileron root was, of course constant.
Copied my notes (photographed them) this morning with the intention of posting same, but still struggling with file size, have to get somebody to show me how to shrink the files.  These notes are from back when the original DIII Datafile was published - was it 1988?.
It's all a question of what the individual wants in the final model, if you're happy then that's fine. I say again, the WNW kit is probably the 'best of the bunch', but the wingtips, and this is applicable to all manufacturers, should have been more closely looked at.
Keep on looking Bo,  the more you look the more understandable it all becomes.
If Rudi Geringer looked at kit wingtips I think he'd be a bit concerned about possible loss of control approaching stall ! !.
Seriously though, it is a glaring omission and should have been seen, no drawings show it either, apart that is from the l' Aerophile side and front elevation.
I'll try to post the stuff I mentioned, phew!, going for a Cornish Pasty now, nice ones at shop round corner!.
Cheers all, Al.

[Ernie]

Al is right, it comes down to what the modeller is happy with.  I am one of those that are quite pleased with my WnW Pfalz, warts and all.  As I age I find myself practicing the "ignorance is bliss" system of modelling
  I am somewhat concerned about the stability troubles, so as a precaution, I have grounded my Pfalz indefinitely.

Cheers,
Ernie

[kornbeef]

CORNISH PASTIES Now you're talking 

[Bellerophon]

Wow, it's great that this topic is recent, since I'm currently designing the master for a 1/48 Pfalz D.IIIa kit for Glencoe Models. The base kit is the old Aurora kit of the D.III (from the '60s, I'm suppose), and the new parts will be the lower wing, horizontal stabilizer, and a mounting part for the Spandaus, comprising the feed/ejection chutes and gun mounts. I'm surprised the kit is as accurate as it is. One of the notable inaccuracies is the number of ribs in the lower wing. At least that won't be a problem for the new boxing. Another problem is the sharp angle where the trailing edge of the wingbox meets the fuselage, but that can be fixed by the modeler, as can be the lack of underwing detail, but I digress. Any help in making the parts I'm designing more accurate will be much much appreciated.

I notice the washout is mentioned on this drawing in the Datafile book, with arrows evidently indicating the point on the span where the washout starts, although I had not noticed the arrow pointing at the upper wing:


The WNW kit has a couple issues with the lower wing. First, while it has an access panel for the aileron control cables on the upper side of each lower wingroot, the footboard forward of it on the left side is missing. I've never seen a photo where the footboard is clearly missing, and of course it is necessary (like the boards in my attic--lath and plaster is not enough to support a fellow who weighs 18 stone). The lower wing has the tip washout, but it's also got the outermost full-chord rib spaced about 10% farther out than the usual spacing, which I think is about 348mm. I see no evidence for this in any photos or drawings. Even this contemporary one:


The top wing washout is hard to see in most photos, being above the photographer's height. But you can see it in several of the WNW archive photos. Thankfully it's one of the easier things to correct on a model. The washout is formed differently in the two wings: the upper leading edge droops near the tip because the wing is twisted farther back (probably at 1/4 chord), but the lower has a straight leading edge due to its axis of twist being right at the leading edge. Incidentally, both the Aurora D.III and my D.IIIa have the lower wing tip washout, and formed correctly, but this kit's upper wing has no washout.

Anyway, it's not always easy to spot all these things on your own, which is a major reason for inaccuracies in models. Any help with getting the lower wing right will be greatly appreciated.
Cheers,
Ed

[Skids]

Well Im gutted, all the money I have spent and now its wrong. 

Care  no I don't, the kit looks sunning and the builds on here (and other forums) just blow me away.

Cant wait to start it

[Des]

I am pretty sure that 99.9% of modelers adopt the attitude of - who cares - Accuracy of a model has been a contentious issue ever since models have been produced and will always be a focal point to certain "rivet counter" modelers. To the naked eye from a respectable viewing distance nearly all models look to be a very good representation of the real thing, or damn close to it, but how many of us walk up to a model with micrometer in hand and a high powered magnifer just to make sure that the model is exactly a scale replica of the real aeroplane. No matter how hard a manufacturer tries to get his model kit accurate there will always be those who will criticise his efforts and well within their rights to do so, but as I said, the majority of modelers are extremely happy with the kits and will keep buying and building them, I know I will, none of my aircraft will ever be grounded because the stitch count is wrong 

Des.

[rolanddvi]

Well said Des.

[RAGIII]

Des, very well put and I am certainly one who will most likely HAPPILY build my Roden DIII without changing the Geometry! That being said for those in the get it correct school I will also appreciate seeing their resolution to the "Issues"
RAGIII

[Bellerophon]

I too have little sympathy for the modeler who raises accuracy issues merely to complain, expecting to shake the box and out comes a perfect replica. It's very useful though when modelers raise accuracy issues to help other modelers fix them, to make aftermarket parts to correct deficiencies, or as input for those who are designing masters for kits.

I think I've figured out how a Pfalz D.IIIa late lower wing should look, and where the inaccuracies are in both the Datafile book's drawings and the WNW model. The former shows the aileron control cable access panel and foot strip being too narrow--they should extend to the wing box. The latter lacks the foot strip on the left wing (hard to see on any photos, but I'm sure it's there) and it has the outermost wing rib unequally spaced, which does not appear to be the case in their own reference photos, though it's almost impossible to tell. These problems and the lack of washout on the upper wing are all pretty easily fixed, so I think the WNW kit is well worth the money.

The Glencoe kit will also be worth it at ten bucks, but I'm still making my list of modifications to make it accurate. At least the lower wing will be accurate as it can be while fitting the lower fuselage.

I don't mind at all having to do a little plastic surgery.

[uncletony]

I too have little sympathy for the modeler who raises accuracy issues merely to complain, expecting to shake the box and out comes a perfect replica. It's very useful though when modelers raise accuracy issues to help other modelers fix them, to make aftermarket parts to correct deficiencies, or as input for those who are designing masters for kits.

I totally agree. Any criticism of the WNW kit has to come with an acknowledgement of how amazingly good the rest of it is. Still, it is an error that does not require a magnifying glass to see once you are clued in. I bet dollars to doughnuts that if the kit is ever re-issued they fix this.

It is not going to be an easy fix for most modelers and I'm sure of the few that are aware of it most will live with it quite happily -- and that is fine! Others will see it as a challenge to set their model apart from the crowd -- that's fine too! It also provides an opportunity for the aftermarket guys -- also a good thing, in my opinion.

[ALBATROS1234]

i wonder if a fix could be as simple as application of heat whether hot water or hot air and twisting the wing into shape? ive dont this before to add washout and/or dihedral . is it not possible in this case?

[uncletony]

i wonder if a fix could be as simple as application of heat whether hot water or hot air and twisting the wing into shape? ive dont this before to add washout and/or dihedral . is it not possible in this case?

I don't think that would address the tapering airfoil section.    To me that's what pops out when you look at the archive photos compared to the kit. But maybe the washout exaggerates the apparent taper when viewed from the rear aspect and so maybe that might do it??? Dunno.