LINNEY

I was not too happy about starting another SE5a thread because Graham (Greyhead) is doing such a fine job but he and others said a different viewpoint would be welcome - so....
Actually, I was encouraged because apparently Graham and I come from two different directions. Clearly, he is a craftsman and a very committed one whilst I certainly am not, I am more of a technician and our differences in approach might, just might, be of interest. It is doubtful if there is a simple right-or-wrong, just differences to which there will be different reactions.

Firstly, what is "scratch build"? Some appear to think it is making a model from a kit as distinct from putting the finishing touches to an ARTF. Others say it is starting from a plain piece of paper, drawing up your own plans, buying all materials and getting on with it. I think slightly differently because this aircraft was "scratch built" by the Royal Aircraft Factory from plans supplied by the designer, H.P.Folland, in 1916 so my first job was to find plans. I settled on the 71" span John Simmance plans bought from the U.S. MODEL AIRPLANE NEWS and was provided with 6 sheets each about 5' x 3' !
Actually, 3 of these massive sheets give very excellent full-size plan and, where necessary, elevation details of all the wood and metal work required - and I discovered that there were to be nearly 400 wooden parts from over 120 different designs! Well, if I could look ahead five years I might manage, but even then not to the quality standard required so I went to Leon Cole of Belair Digital and asked if he could laser-cut them for me. No problem, and he has one big advantage, he can cut thick ply so there would be no need for laminating the most substantial parts. The metal parts I am prepared to take on.

The next thing was to study the plans - for very many hours, they are very complex - and work out a production sequence. There are of course no construction details, you work it out for yourself, and I would hate to find that I have built up a section but then need to get back inside it. Actually I always dry assemble everything, with Sellotape, until construction is well under way.

Then the next problem - no point in starting to build unless you know what engine you plan to fit because the engine housing will need to be modified according to that decision. O.K. so what engine? Well, as I have said elsewhere, what prop? Possibly 18lbs of aircraft (I tend to build overweight to benefit strength) with lots of drag - biplane with struts, fixed undercarriage, etc. And what air speed must be achieved to permit healthy take-off? No help from anyone, I cannot find anyone who works from the prop requirements backwards - which to me I am afraid is the only logical way to go. The best I could get was "use a 120 4-stroke and whatever prop goes with that". O.K., then the RCV 120SP seems possible, it apparently has the power to pull that weight and overcome that drag given a 20" prop and the big advantage is that being a radially-mounted "rotating cylinder" engine it fits totally in-cowl. But it rotates at half "normal" revs and has a recommended maximum of 5,000rpm. Now, RCV suggest a 12" pitch which at max. revs would give about 55 mph theoretically. I have no idea what it might be in practice or if that is adequate - does anyone please? The other point is that a 20" prop would have about 2" ground clearance in level flight and since this aircraft is said to have a tendency to tip on its nose (plenty of WW1 photos to prove it) it might be better to use, say, a 15x12 4-bladed prop. Such props were common in actual service. Any views please?

The next approach was to the actual plans. Firstly they are too massive for casual "whilst-working" reference so I had the local photo shop produce quarter-size reproductions for me and I can keep these by the work bench. The next, very common, situation is that the plans show the port side of the fuselage elevation and the port wings plan view and so of course it is necessary to make "mirror images". So I had the same photo shop print out the construction plans 1:1 on transparent material so that when building starboard I only have to turn the plans over. Easy. And of course I cover them with a self-adhesive clear film to which cyano and epoxy do not adhere.

And, for now, the final consideration - and some views would be appreciated. When making a scale model is one expected to reproduce an active service model, complete with wrinkled covering, distorted spars, patches, rust, oil, dirt etc or should one, as I believe, attempt to produce the designer's dream? I asked the Shuttleworth chaps and their view was certainly as mine. They considered that if you reproduce all the blemishes it will be considered to be just an excuse for poor workmanship. So I propose to try to build what Folland had in mind in 1916 and any blemishes will be my failings and not deliberate. But that is a long time into the future.

I wil add to this from time-to-time as matters progress but for now I await, in hope, for some helpful reactions please!