Got my 1:72 DC-4 yesterday. It will be awhile before I can get it on the bench. Some ambiguity in the instructions. One of the difficulties with making kits for people of many languages is that icons are not always that clear in expressing complex decisions
A nice feature is that there are seperate interior fuselage sides rather than trying to mold interior into back side of exterior skins. There is a very high parts count- this thing will take awhile to put together.
One of the things that frosts me is that not only is there no estimate of weight for nose suggested- the instructions do not even mention nose weight! Instead, the kit comes with a tail brace to prevent sitting back on tail- what a regression!
Anyone know if anyone makes AA decals for a -4 in 1:72. Queried Draw Decal, they do not and do not intend to. I am left with trying to scale up the AA decals from my 1:144 Minicraft kit- that seems like quite a scaleup. If that does not look very good, I’ll just go with Draw’s Northwest decals.
I had the same issue with my C-54 Skymaster. I put a bunch of weight in the front of it, and it was still a tail sitter. But I guess they were in real life as well.
Many were . Did you ever wonder what the dimple under the tail was for ? That was so if it did , nothing important would get damaged . They certainly couldn’t rotate enough in take - off to bump that spot !
In my " Independence " aircraft I have 21 washers that just barely fit . Now it stands on it’s nose gear .
Which , by the way was strengthened with a brass rod up the middle of the leg . T.B.
Which strengthens my bitch about mfgs telling us how much weight the nose needs! If properly balanced, that weight does not add substantially to stress on nose gear, though it does still add to the weight on the mains. But, it is really hard to actually measure how much it takes to balance. A one-time task that the mfgs should do!
Airplanes are tail sitters because when they’re designed the engineers take the weight of the engines into account, the center of gravity moves forward. The attached video of the 747s without engines almost flying in gusty winds, the photos of b-24s in the scrap yards without engines sitting on their tails.
Listen , I discovered a way to solve the weight problem .Without sacrificing the landing gear . Mount it dry then sit the plane on a Diet scale that measures in Grams . Take a matchbox sized container and tape it above the cockpit
Make sure you deduct the box and tape weight before the next step . That’s your Tare . Now start adding B.B. s or washers till it sits on the gear firmly but doesn’t weaken it .
This has worked for me since . On the washer loaded one I was trying to build like I didn’t know this . See ,when I worked for Timex in Little Rock , Ar . We would supply each station with a shift full of parts and they only could be measured in Grams .
First Douglas built what was to become a only one up airplane the DC4E. It was built with partiall goverment funding but due to cost overruns the whole project cost more than the funding. The airlined rejected the prototype doubting if they could ever make money operating it. It was the first US aircraft built with a APU I believe. It came with a triple tail, was underpowered, and when rejected by the airlines was sold to Japan.
Next Douglas designed a smaller, more pratical DC4 that Douglas used the Twin Wasp engine with high compression cylinders using 100 oct gas to meet performance specs. The airlines rejected the use of 100 oct gas rather than the cheaper 80 oct. Douglas ask P&W to come up with more powerful engine so the 1830 became the R2000 twin wasp burning 80 oct and meeting the DC4 power requirements.
Hard to believe but the fusaloge cross section from the DC4, DC6, and DC7 were the same - just plugs were added to increase the length. Same with the wing - same airfoil but added sections to increase span.
I have two of these beasts in my unbuilt stash, and you are correct…a huge number of parts to build the model as detailed as you wish. And to boot, there are brass photo etched parts available as well to beef up the landing gear. I would suggest you use metal gear for the final build, as the model will weigh quite a bit once you have added the nose weight and interior parts. I have always used a sure-fire formula for determining the weight required for a model…“whatever it takes.” try taping together the fuselage, the wings, and tail, then balance the taped assembly on a fulcrum, adding the desired weight, and then a little more to compensate for the completed parts, until it sits as desired. Remember, too, that it was and is common to attach a strong pole to the tail of the real airplane while it is loaded or unloaded, so as to prevent it from tipping to the tail. The pole is removed after at least two engines are running, so as to shift the CG by virtue of the wind created by the props, causing the airplane to sit properly on all three gear. So, the tail pole is not a “regression,” but a necessity. Looking forward to seeing your build progress.
It would not be smart to try to fly an airplane that will not sit on it’s gear once loaded, with engines off. With the CG that far aft the airplane would be at best marginally controllable. With aft CG the elevators get very sensitive, and at lower speeds may not be effective enough to get the nose down, resulting in an unrecoverable stall. The post under the tail is only used for loading and maintenance. Try to find a photo of an airliner with passengers being loaded with the tail support in place. I think you will only find that when loading freight.
I’d agree. With the cargo door way in the back there, heavy stuff would have to be slid forward inside to balance the aircraft.
One time I got on an aircraft at Burbank. The cabin was empty except for just a couple of folks, myself in the last row. The flight attendant came back and told me that they need me to move up to the first row.
I couldn’t see how that would matter, but I wasn’t about to complain.
I, too, was on a commercial flight (a small plane) where the stewardess asked people to move forward for a more favorable weight balance. I first couldn’t figure out how they knew the balance was not good until I realized they can look at how much the nose gear is compressed. There may be other ways?
