fiberglass models 1/1 scale

I honestly think that the idea of building an aluminium replica or looking at acquiring a project is more practical and most likely no more expensive.
When I got my car I didn’t know much about its construction only that I had originally clapped eyes on the one I now own in about 1975 and best part of 25 years later it was sitting in my garage looking very derelict.
When I discovered that I had bought a fibreglass monocoque I was very pleased that I wasn’t going to have rust problems etc of a steel car but fibreglass does have it owns problems and challenges which are easily equal to those that a steel monocoque can throw at you.
In theory you can do a lot of the work without having to spend ages learning specialised techniques (like welding) but in practice it isn’t quite that easy particularly if you need to get a good long lasting surface finish.

i am very fast thinking resins a fibreglass is a bad idea.. still thanks for such great input , 🙂

Robert I think the techniques and trials and tribulations are still much the same. There are probably more types and grades of cloths and resins now but it is still the same mucky process it always was.
I worked on a body buck for a single seater racing car in about 97/98 and we couldn’t get the mould off the buck. By the time it released we had lost about 40% of the surface and there was no chance of a second mould without hours more work on the buck to get it back to an acceptable standard. Hard messy fume filled work!
We also discovered that someone had mounted one of the wooden bulkheads in the wrong station when we built the buck so the body had a great looking coke bottle shaped when viewed in plan. Only problem was that the regs for Formula Renualt Sport stipulated strict max and min widths at certain points on the body and the misplaced bulkhead meant ours wasn’t per the regulations. As it happened the project ran out of money before the car turned a wheel so we never got to rebuild the buck but it does show how careful you need to be.

I suppose materials have come a long way since people built canoes from a mould. Anyone remember the hours of making the mould smooth then being unable to separate the actual moulding from the mould without damaging both! Also getting your hands coated with resin that went hard and when peeled off it took the skin off you hands. Ah happy days and no more resin for me except filling the heads of hundreds of rivets! 😀

It may take longer however.

Yep, and it might also be great deal more fun than messing around with resin.

Peter

I dont think you will find that the economics of making a mould to produce only one item are realistic. Also the weight could be quite considerable and you may need to build in strengtheners. If you have access to a complete fuselage why not measure it all up including all the formers and skins. Then using aluminium sheeting I think you could produce a metal cockpit part of an aircraft (Provost?) that would be lighter, more rigid and even cheaper than the fibreglass route. It may take longer however.

Merkle – You did say that, apart from the problems of keeping a complete airframe, the other main factor is that you don’t have enough money to buy the static aircraft. I wondered if you had worked out the cost of materials to produce a mould and then producing complete parts from that mould as I would have thought the matting and resin is going to add up to a fair bit particularly as you are likely to have one or two failures along the way. You also need a warm workshop to get fibreglass resins to react properly and the heating bill will be a significant part of the budget.
I have been messing around with an old kit car for a few years and fibreglass is smelly, extremely messy and sanding produces mounds of dust which gets in everywhere. My other half is less than enthusiastic when I walk indoors and trail the red dust from the old gelcoat around the house!
I have found that trying to work in a garage that also has to house my tools and a motorbike is very difficult as everything seems to get covered with resin and / or dust no matter how careful you are so ideally you are going to need a workshop which is solely to house your project at least until such time as you have a set of finished mouldings and have got through the worst of the resin and dust stages.
It may just work out that the costs for your friends spare static project will be similar or less than the cost of making a replica cockpit in fibreglass assuming that you can find the space to keep a whole airframe at a viable cost.
If you are looking to take the finished cockpit to events you are going to have to watch the weight to make sure that you can move it for a reasonable cost but equally you are going to need something reasonably substantial to avoid problems with the fibreglass crazing.
Please don’t get me wrong I am not saying your idea is impossible – I am just trying to offer alternative outlooks and having done a bit of fibreglass work I know just how messy it can be.

Would this count?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8327914.stm

:)many thanks ,martin, speedy,and avi,

The only reason i thought of taking this route, is i have a friend who has a complete aircraft, as a spares ship for one he is doing up, and he is one of my very best friends,. the spares ship is gutted, and would only be any good as a static, but is complete, and i couldnt afford to buy it, but with his knowledge, i think he would allow me to make a cockpit pod copy, or atleast make a set of lifelike skins from his original, its also of a type that hasnt been done as a cockpit in the past or present, but not a rare type either,i will aproach him soon and ask the question, i know he would gladly sell me the whole thing, but storage was allways my problem, and the only reason i wanted just a cockpit ,was the fact i could transport it to various events, where as a static airframe, i would just be stuck with, i will ring him later, a see what he says .. pose the question..I wouldnt dream of asking anyone else, its just a thought anyway.

If I was interested in making full scale statics I would use Corecell SAN foam. It is available in planks or sheet in varying thicknesses and densities. It is very easy to work with. If bi-axial glass reinforcement is used in the skins a very fair surface finish can be easily produced.

Corecell was originally made by ATC in Canada. Now Gurit (ex-SP) market it.

Re: Glass Molds and Plugs

Try this: http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/
Scroll down to “composites” …

I think maybe your thinking about this the wrong way.

I would have thought the number of aircraft owners that would allow someone to take moulds from their airframe unless you were a big film company with a sizeable budget to make it worth their while would have been few to zero.

Maybe this series of videos would be of interest to you. Certainy if you consider that there is a multitude of very very good scale drawings around to kick start you on your way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqTKJU6PlkA&feature=related

Just an additional thought kit car homebuild body shells can be built in a way not a million miles from this, see below.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250595532304&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT

Aircraft mould

There was an ex-BoB film prop Hurricane restored at Hooton Park a while back and this had a basic (non-scale) wooden structure over which fibreglass skins were placed to give the required shape.

These skins made the replica very convincing indeed as all the panels, joints and rivets were superbly reproduced. This could only have been from being moulded from a real aircraft.

This makes sound sense, if you have more than one replica to make as the moulds can be re-used many times over.

Anon.

I think you will be very lucky to take a mould from a restored aircraft without any damage to the paint finish. Airframes awaiting restoration would be a different matter as any paint damage wouldn’t matter too much and the chances of damaging the structure of a metal aircraft when making a mould would be minimal.
The only problem I can see is that the paint surface on an aircraft in need of retoration is likely to be pretty rough so you aren’t going to get a mould with a good surface finish which will mean any parts made from the mould are going to need a lot of filling and sanding to look half decent.
The solution is to rub down the surface of the aircraft you are using to take the mould to get it smooth before you start. If you can get a good smooth surface this will also ease any problems in getting the mould to release from the airframe but how many owners are going to let you rub down and polish the surface of their aeroplane even if it is in need of restoration?

Well, if anyone was wondering why the P40 at Hendon is missing some paint, that’s because it was damaged when a company making replicas pulled some paint off during the process of making a mould from it

Replicas for “Red Tails”??

Thats why i wouldnt dream of asking a museum to make a mould from a restored airframe, but there are some in need of restoration and in bits, (complete airframes)

that the proccess wouldnt damage, i think going near a nice restored example to do this process, is a big no no .even if when its done properly it should leave no damage.??

if you look on demobbed, the airframe condition and types ,just for a instance would be like the following… surely if done properly it couldnt damage them.

heres some examples below.. aircraft i wonder could be used as masters,and is purely a “Just for instance”

RH746 brigand, “I would’nt dream of asking, but she is in need of restoration.”
ID-16 and ID-23 hunters at beuavechain

seahawks wf299, or wv798,
meteor cockpit WF877 at duxford, ( I know its a complete airframe,but its just the cockpit shown in the photograph)
Wn411 Gannet cockpit section

you see the idea, planes in need of restoration, prior to there restoration,and just the cockpit,area,

I am not making the suggestion that the aircraft stated above in anyway should be approached and asked to do such a task, i purely note them above from there photographed condition on demobbed website. :D:)

Well, if anyone was wondering why the P40 at Hendon is missing some paint, that’s because it was damaged when a company making replicas pulled some paint off during the process of making a mould from it

If you keep your ear to the ground, they (replicas) come up from time to time in Flypast and aeroplank monthly, usually battered, but cheap.

Baz

thanks for your advice..:D

i looked on the net but couldnt find anything really useful, do you know of any books etc that have a step by step guide ??..

I had the realization that being cockpits from real aircraft are very few and far between these days, i thought i could “make” the cockpit pod ,from using a real aircraft as a master to copy, make the mould, probably in 3 sections, and then using these moulds to make a nice fiberglass cockpit shell, which is the part cockpiteers need to start with or eventually have to build a cockpit layout.

once i have a nicely finished small cockpit pod, would be a good start,just the front cockpit, no nose, just the bit you sit in, and build up from there .:).

I did see a full-scale Spitfire replica built using foam to create the initial shape, before the fibreglass (or GRP, whatever it was) was laid on top.

Looked pretty good, but I don’t know whether the plane has ever flown or not. (Yes, it was an airworthy replica!)