Flat monofilament. Finally found some !

[Tnarg]

American Standard rigging wires were specified by thread size, but the big one as used on the larger wires for the Gee Bee R-1 and R-2, Boeing P-26, F4B-4 and P-12E was a 1/2" - 20 part. The half inch was the thread size and the width was specified to 0.732" with 0.183" to 0.192" thickness. That flat monofilament sounds about as good as it gets for matching this line. Perfect for the larger wires on those planes. They also used the 3/8" -24 wires (sometimes next to each other) which were 0.540" wide.

 

Sounds like some Golden Age airplanes could look even better.

 

Tnarg

[DeanKB]

I've started looking at surgical suture. There's all sorts out there, with different profiles, and I'm looking to research some flat profiled suture.

 

It does exist.

[Hubert Boillot]

2 hours ago, Clunkmeister said:

I'm definitely going to try it. There's some here I trust their opinions unerringly, and Hubert is one of those. If he thinks it'll work, I'm all for giving it a try.

 

Besides, what's the worst that could happen?  You're out the astronomical cost of a roll of fishing line.

 

I am deeply honored by this vote of confidence, Ernie. I am usually a stickler for scale-accuracy and in the rivet-counter camp. As such, this flat mono is not scale-accurate, but I am venturing that it might look ok, and is worth a try.  Only after this trial can we say if this wire will appear to represent a streamlined wire well enough ...

 

1 hour ago, Tnarg said:

American Standard rigging wires were specified by thread size, but the big one as used on the larger wires for the Gee Bee R-1 and R-2, Boeing P-26, F4B-4 and P-12E was a 1/2" - 20 part. The half inch was the thread size and the width was specified to 0.732" with 0.183" to 0.192" thickness. That flat monofilament sounds about as good as it gets for matching this line. Perfect for the larger wires on those planes. They also used the 3/8" -24 wires (sometimes next to each other) which were 0.540" wide.

 

Sounds like some Golden Age airplanes could look even better.

 

Tnarg

 

Thanks for the input on American wires. As I am not home, I felt it might be ok for American Golden Age aircrafts, but this was just a gut-feel. Now I feel more confident with my instinct.

 

Hubert

[Guest Clunkmeister]

2 hours ago, williamj said:

You know with the tens of thousands of WNW kits combined with all of the other Bipes out there in resin and styrene,surprised there aren't more AM flying wires in different sizes and material available.

I have used only RB flat flying wires with no complaints for the past few years (actually like them),used to use stretched sprue and thin plastic rod ,but it would be nice to have something as an option that was the correct shape.

I am convinced if such a product was made available there would be an absolute run on it.

William, I agree 100%!

I've become attached to Monofilament line for one big reason: It adds strength to the model which benefits travel. In Texas, going to any show is at least an hour's automobile trip, usually much more.  I live in the country and everything is far away. So anything I can do to make a biplane model sturdier is good for me.

[Guest Clunkmeister]

39 minutes ago, Hubert Boillot said:

 

I am deeply honored by this vote of confidence, Ernie. I am usually a stickler for scale-accuracy and in the rivet-counter camp. As such, this flat mono is not scale-accurate, but I am venturing that it might look ok, and is worth a try.  Only after this trial can we say if this wire will appear to represent a streamlined wire well enough ...

 

 

Thanks for the input on American wires. As I am not home, I felt it might be ok for American Golden Age aircrafts, but this was just a gut-feel. Now I feel more confident with my instinct.

 

Hubert

 

Hubert, I'm right there with you on the scale accuracy thing. I like my models to look the part. Not a "what if", but a total miniature replica and illusion to the eyes.

 

I think with biplanes though we're definitely exaggerating an effect in many respects.

Woodgrain, for example. Our woodgraining is WAY overscale by a factor of about 200, yet it gets the point across.

Fabric effect decals: again, way overscale, but it gives the effect and looks great

Turnbuckles: Waaay overscale, but they look the part

And the list goes on.

 

We look for the effect on pre 1929 biplanes, we model exact to scale in later years.

My .02 only, and it's worth nothing. 

 

 

[Guest Peterpools]

Just a simple observation:

Unless you are eyeball to eyeball with the rigging, can you really see the difference between round and airfoil shaped rigging? Step back about a good foot and I'm only guessing but the effect should be the same.

Just my one cent worth's as I've yet to complete a biplane in the last 30 years

Peter

 

[Guest Clunkmeister]

yep,

Peter, I did an RE.8 that way and I never really noticed. 

[Gigant]

2 hours ago, Peterpools said:

Just a simple observation:

Unless you are eyeball to eyeball with the rigging, can you really see the difference between round and airfoil shaped rigging? Step back about a good foot and I'm only guessing but the effect should be the same.

Just my one cent worth's as I've yet to complete a biplane in the last 30 years

Peter

 

 

Indeed yes, Peter.

 

As Ernie points out, in the 1/32 scale exaggeration seems to be the standard recently.

In fact it seems the extreme few who seem to venture to the absurd, and go so far to ignore any semblance of aerodynamic engineering considerations and render a likeness that in reality could not fly any better then a Sherman Tank.

 

When asked on one forum about rigging a smaller scale biplane I built, I pointed that in period photographs, those taken at any distance rendered the plane's rigging invisible, like a spider's web, so I was not going to bother, and I still intend to avoid getting sucked into the energy-draining vortex of over-detailing with any future builds I do.

 

 

[Hubert Boillot]

4 hours ago, Peterpools said:

Just a simple observation:

Unless you are eyeball to eyeball with the rigging, can you really see the difference between round and airfoil shaped rigging? Step back about a good foot and I'm only guessing but the effect should be the same.

Just my one cent worth's as I've yet to complete a biplane in the last 30 years

Peter

 

 

When I did my Fisher Ryan ST-M, I followed Paul’s own advice and did not use the supplied-in-the-kit PE « wires » . So I went with round mono, and, you are right, it is not that noticeable in the end. Certainly not as sore a point as sagging wires would have been.

Still, I knew I would have preferred a better rendition of these wires, which are noticeably distinct on mostly American Golden Age aircrafts, like the Williams racers or the P-26. Hence my « quest » ...

 

 Now, I may have a more satisfactory solution, for some kits at least. I may even do another ST-M (now that’s a lame excuse to have another go at this great kit, simply because I love it  )

 

Hubert

Edited July 13, 2018 by Hubert Boillot

[Guest Clunkmeister]

Yes, completely agreed on the Golden Age racers.  The airplanes are small and the wires are large. The bracing wires form a very large portion of the aircraft. The Travel Air Mystery Ship, for example. It’s my favorite Golden Age racer by far, and the shiny wires against a black/red scalloped aircraft is just too cool for school. 

Then don’t even get me started on the Wedell-Williams or any of the Granville Brothers designs.

[phasephantomphixer]

Remember those black "Magnetic screen door" kits you could have to a patio, etc? The border strips were fraying on the one I had years ago and I noticed the threads were flat.

They are very thin. I gathered several lengths of it into ziplocks to use when I get one of my many WNW builds going. They are real cheap on Ebay, etc. Like under $10.00. Plus, there's magnets! 

 

Oh, and noticed with this revised forum, i'm about 1/2 reputation. Guess my humor needs work!  Ugh

Edited July 13, 2018 by phasephantomphixer
Additional comment

[DeanKB]

20 hours ago, Peterpools said:

Just a simple observation:

Unless you are eyeball to eyeball with the rigging, can you really see the difference between round and airfoil shaped rigging? Step back about a good foot and I'm only guessing but the effect should be the same.

Just my one cent worth's as I've yet to complete a biplane in the last 30 years

Peter

 

Not unless you know that sort of rigging exists, and you are looking carefully at a 1/32 model, and are looking at the correct wires.

 

In other words, if you are one of us.

[modelingbob]

Take a look at fly tying thread. Most fly fishing stores stock it. It comes in a wide variety of sizes and features a flat profile. Fly tying thread is different from any other type of thread and is flat so it will not build up bulk when tying flies. For example, Danville 6/0 fly tying thread is about .004" by .002" which is about scale thickness for 1/48. Danville 3/0 is about scale thickness for LSP's. I've tried using it, but I found it very difficult to use in trying to not introduce any twist(s) in the rigging wire. Admittedly, my hands are pretty clumsy and shakey, and my eyes are very poor, so you may be able to get it to work for you. I've settled on .004" & .006"  monofilament fishing line for all my rigging as I don't have to worry about twist. 

[Out2gtcha]

How many Lbs test are .004" & .006 out of curiosity Bob?

[modelingbob]

9 hours ago, Out2gtcha said:

How many Lbs test are .004" & .006 out of curiosity Bob?

It varies widely by brand. Most of the time, 2 & 4 pound test, respectively. Most labels list the diameter. I buy mine by diameter, but then again, I'm a fly fisherman and I have tons of the stuff.