Re: Eduard Sopwith Pup:over scale?

Bill Shatzer (
Mon, 16 Oct 1995 21:25:16 -0700

Matthew Bittner wrote:
>On 16 Oct 95 at 10:45, Hirohisa Ozaki typed diligently:
>> Hello, everyvody.
>> I subscribed this mailng list at last week, and recieve confirmation.
>> Purchased the Eduard Sopwith Pup and check accuracy.
>> Somebody pointed out the figure of cowlling slots and no exhaust channel in
>> earlier articles, I read its in the archeive.
>> Thank authors, it is very helpful suggestion for me.
>> BTW, is this kit a little bigger than 1/48th?
>> I compared kit parts with 3-view plans in Windsock Data Files No.2(reissued).
>> Wing span, cowlling diameter, fuselage length, all of them are bigger than
>> the plans.
>> Is this kit incorrect, or is the plans?
>I would *normally* trust the plans before the kit. Stair and Rimell
>are very accurate, IMNSHO.

I wouldn't be _all_ that trusting of the Windsock scale planes - while
I'm sure the _original_ plans were pretty close to spot on accurate,
the inacccuracies inherient in the printing processes used for printing
publications like the Datafiles almost guarantee that the published
drawings are going to be off by a snerd or two.

I don't have the Pup Datafile but I did a quick check of my Bristol
Scouts publication which has the plans for both the Bristol Scout
"C" and "D". The plan view for the C has a span dimension of
of 6 1/8 inches while the front view only measures out at 6 inches.
The D repeats the same error, only larger; the front view is
6 1/8 inches while the plan view has a 6 1/4 inch wingspan. Of
course the published data gives a wing span of 24' 7" which in
quarter scale would work out to just a smidge over 6 1/8". So,
it appears the Datafile drawings have got the correct dimension
bracketed pretty well but not spot on.

The same error repeats in the fuselage length which on the D measures
out at 5 1/8" or a scale 21' as opposed to the published length
of 20' 8". The C is even worse the other way, with a length of
4 15/16" or a scale 19' 9" as opposed to the published 20' 8".

So, the Windsock drawings, as printed, ain't the Gospel. Scale out
the plans against the published dimensions - you might well find
that the printed plans are off a micro-snerd one way or another.
The published dimensions are -usually- the best starting place
for checking the accuracy of either plans or models.

(I climb down off my soap box and sheepishly admit that a
4" scale error, one way or another in 1/48 doesn't really matter
a lick and that I have many times induced even larger errors
through overly zealous application of the wet 'n' dry.)

Cheers, Bill

PS: Let's get them brews a comin', folks. I'm particularly looking
forward to the arrival of the Belgian Ales. If you could get
'em here before the World Series, 'twould be greatly appreciated
and might up your chances of winning. A malt beverage _always_
tastes better while watching baseball. :-)

Bill Shatzer - - -