🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: rec.models.scale
Article #213

Guillows Models

#213
From: Don Stauffer
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:37
20 lines
1693 bytes
   I agree that the Guillows models do not fly very well.  I think this is
not so much due to heavy balsa, but the number of parts.  In order to give
more accurate contours, they have more formers, stringers, and longerons.  They
have more detail, also, then most flying models.  So I usually build them for
display only.  The large size allows lots of neat details.

   One thing I do when covering a section of the plane which is metal on the
prototype is to cover with card stock, specifically used computer punch cards.
Some cards are only punched in a couple of columns, so almost the whole card
is useable. The stock is ultra thin, and embosses very well for rivet detail.
More important, some sort of plastic is added to card to resist moisture-
induced change in dimensions.  As a result, it takes paint very well.  One
coat of paint for a primer-sealer, a very light sand (or steel wooling), then
finish coat.

   I also use this on model ships, and mentioned it in an article I wrote for
Ships in Scale.  If anyone is interested I will post the issue.

PS  The thing I forgot to mention about punch card stock is that it can be
obtained free, or at very low cost!
Technical Details
Message-ID: <9210161937.AA12902@spot.src.honeywell.com>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!gumby!destroyer!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!src.honeywell.com!mail-enters-news

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: rec.models.scale
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!gumby!destroyer!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!src.honeywell.com!mail-enters-news
From: stauffer@src.honeywell.com (Don Stauffer)
Subject: Guillows Models
To: rec.models.scale
Message-ID: <9210161937.AA12902@spot.src.honeywell.com>
Posted-Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 14: 37:58 CDT
Sender: daemon@src.honeywell.com
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:37:58 GMT
Received-Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 14: 37:32 CDT
Lines: 20