Hi - just building a replica of this kit from Vintage Models and your plan looks great. BUT there is an error on the original plan that make it impossible to build without reducing the lengths of the lower rear fuselage cross members (shown beneath the cockpit fairing) and the corresponding error on the upper wing centre section which is also too wide.
The original designer took the lengths from the vertical members on the side view instead of the width of the fuselage as it narrows towards the tail.
I'm sure anybody who is actually prepared to build it will realise, as I did, that it is wrong. Perhaps a little note with the download could help before any time or work is wasted.
RayWilkinson - 11/01/2017
Thank you Ray, a very helpful observation. Be warned folks!
Mary - 11/01/2017
Hi - I made a comment about the Sopwith plans. Here are some pics of my attempt [model photo & more pics 003-005]. one picture shows the tailplane as drawn, the other two are after a tail transplant with a new tailplane the 'right' way round.
RayWilkinson - 31/01/2017
The internet knows both versions. Hard to say what is the right direction.
The link below shows a vintage pic with the tail plane arranged as drawn
on the plan. File it under 'alternative facts' ;) http://stephenesherman.com/sopwith-triplane/
Hubert - 01/02/2017
Veron tailplane is the prototype and first production form (taken from the PUP). The other is final production form (information from leaflet PROFILE triplane).
Karsten - 02/02/2017
Yes - I knew there were two versions, hence the inverted commas round 'right' - I just saw most pictures this way round and liked the look of it better.
RayWilkinson - 05/02/2017
I can recall building the original kit way back when I was in the RAF and I honestly don't recall any problems with the fuselage cross members or the wing center section - they all fitted as they should. My only 'problem' was one endemic to all KK and Veron WW1 types which was, even with a sheeted nose and a Cox 0.010 up front, it was still tail heavy.
Daithi - 05/02/2017
Fuselage width: Just measured it. Actual width on the model is 34mm, but on the plan the widest cross member and the wing centre section are both shown as 40mm. But what's 6mm between friends? You can take the lengths of the cross struts from the formers at the same point above them.
RayWilkinson - 06/02/2017
Many thanks Ray. Your attention to detail is appreciated and will no doubt help other modellers.
Mary - 06/02/2017
Just for fun I opened the pdfs in windows and physically measured them (at 100%) - cross struts and former widths were identical, as was the 'rudder' from plan and printwood. There was no discrepancy that I could find.
It's possible that the error crept in during printing. A quick check should have the printwood (the lower section does show the corners) to be exactly 12 inches long (all Veron and KK kits were made from a single sheet of 32" x 3" x 1/16" balsa). Comparing the 'rudder line' on both printwood and plan would also show up any discrepancy.
As I said earlier, the original kit didn't have a problem so it has to be something that has come along in either the scanning or printing.
Regarding the tail - the change was mainly a field modification. From Profile number 73 "...The revised tail surfaces were shorter in span by 2 ft. 1 in. and had a total area of 23.6 sq, ft. ...Some aircraft still had the original tail surfaces in June 1917...". As it's generally better to have a larger tail area, in this case staying as per the plan may be a better idea.
Of course for anyone wanting something different, there's always the 'Sopwith Mouse' aka Alcock A1, which had the forward fuselage and lower wing of a triplane, the upper wing from a Pup and the tailplane of a Camel (with a home-brew fin and rudder).
Daithi - 09/02/2017
The problem comes from the fact that Veron do not show the fuselage from the top so it could become clear that there is not only a crack of the longerons at F8 but also a crack or bend at F11. This is clear on the top view on plan 3028
also a triplane. Then it is clear that the length of the lower cross struts are correct.
Karsten - 10/02/2017
Just viewed the Youtube video of the Shuttleworth Collection and about 11 minutes in is a video of the Triplane (www.youtube.com/watch
). The long edge of the stab is to the rear. Just ahead of the triplane was the video of the Pup, and it had the long edge to the front. Both aircraft were flying ...
BillH - 11/02/2017
The bends are clearly shown in the isometric drawing, besides which it also says on the plan 'crack longerons here and re-cement' at F8.
Not only that but the original post (from Ray) was saying that the front section had the problem and not the rear.
Daithi - 11/02/2017
I have just built the model and the plan is incorrect. I didn't discover it until after had cut the lower cross struts using the plan. Try measuring the formers above - you'll see what I mean. The width of the centre section is dictated by the distance between the struts which are glued to the inside of the fuselage longerons just forward of the cockpit. Again, it is too wide by 6mm. The fuselage ain't square - which it would be if you used the cross strut lengths on the plan. Look at the pictures - I have just done it. Sorry to be a pain but if you want to prove it - build it yourself.
RayWilkinson - 11/02/2017
Hello again - two pictures. One shows the lower struts cut from the plan and laid on top of the corresponding strut on the plane. The other shows the plan laid on the centre section. They don't fit because the measurements are taken from the side view, not the narrower plan view which is not shown.
RayWilkinson - 11/02/2017
Right - the plan and the cutting sheet are from two different versions of the Veron model. The plan (same as mine) has only three longerons on the sides of the fuselage. I think a later, slimmer, version. If you look at the cutting sheet, the side formers ( f13, f14, f15) have five slots, there are two more longerons on this version.
So, an apology, the widths are correct for the cutting sheet. But the plan is the wrong one - it matches my kit and is itself wrong because it doesn't take in the narrower, obviously cheaper fuselage.
Anyway - I bought the kit from a charity shop for 2 pounds and have really enjoyed building my first model in 45 years!
RayWilkinson - 13/02/2017