Paul Thompson

Quite well received when released, previous century, with the biggest downside being the basic cockpit and poor ejector seat. There was at least one resin and PE detail set with full cockpit, and bits like replacement U/C doors, the other version of bang seat as a standalone item was also available (whatever it was the Autstralians used). Can't remember the set makers offhand, and too busy to check right now I'm afraid. Probably hard to find anyway, but they do exist. Apart from the boxings Giorgio lists there was also one with extra decals for Australian machines. Paul.

Chaps, the original poster asked about which of the 3 1/72nd kits available in his LHS were most suitable. I know the answer could be 'I wouldn't start from here', but it doesn't help him decide. I'm not being pedantic or grumpy, just trying to stop unintentional thread drift. Paul.

I thought so too, until I found a photograph of the survivor in the London Science museum at just the right angle to help make sense of it all. Granted, there are about 10 times the number of wires as on a D.VII, but i was really thinking of the ease of getting them in place, which is harder on a biplane. Still, I see your point, so I'd modify my previous post to say D.VII first so long as the builder can cope with the second wing (which, once you've done it a few times, really isn't as scary or black-arty as all that). Paul.

Of those 3, the Fokker E,V - good kit, only one wing, and not much rigging, all of which is easily accessible. The D.VII is a very good kit and has more colourful colour schemes, but while only a little rigging, 2 wings. Mind you, having N interplane struts instead of individual ones makes it much easier to successful get your first biplane together. The F2b is a good kit but much more limited run in nature, which coupled with one of the more complex wing cellules (2 bays, i.e. 8 interplane and 4 cabane struts, plus the fuselage mounted above the lower wing on tiny struts) and extensive rigging leads me to warn you off it until you've got several biplanes under your belt. Summary, go for the E.V, save the D.VII until you're happy with the EV, and forget the F2b for a while. A painless way to get comfortable with the genre is any of the old Revell 1/72nd kits. They're crude by modern standards, there are better kits of most of them, and they have the dreaded strut tie bars to ease getting the top wings on (which work but can look ugly without a lot of care), but they're fairly forgiving, fairly cheap, and can polish up nicely with careful work. Good for messing about with rigging too, without wasting a lot of effort on the building of the actual kit. Paul.

There are two distinct shades of both blue and red I've seen supplied by decal manufacturers over the years. And then Eduards, which where very, very bright when they started of, way way back. The duller red is always paired with a chalkier and duller blue. For what I mean, look up the decal sheets from old Blue Max and Pegasus kits, or Blue Rider. They're in the same ball park as Americal Gryphon sheets, so I'd suppose have a common ancestor. I've no idea which is more right, or at least less wrong. Probably a can of worms, but it would be nice to know (I did ask once on the WW1 Mailing list forum, but IIRC there was no concensus). I just had a look on Hannants at a Print Scale Nieuport sheet, and the red seems too bright - same for the blue, but not so bad. Myself, I use duller colours simply because the first French aftermarket decals I used were Blue Rider, which are really dark compared to the Print Scale ones, and I try to keep my models consistent where feasible. Paul.

As usual, the answer used to be a set by Part of Poland, which also has the fairings that are otherwise very hard to recreate where the axle meets the undercarriage vees. I got mine 15 or so years ago from the former Luchtvaart Hobbyshop. at very reasonable prices (5 or 6 Euros a throw). I did a Nie. 11 earlier and spent some quality time filing a cutout in the windscreen, thinning it down, and restoring the top with a bit of stretched sprue. Then white glue for the transparent bit. Doesn't look great but better than it was. I still have a few Toko kits in the stash, and they are cruse compared to the later incarnation of the company (Roden), with decals just as awful, but at the time were regarded as pretty damn good. Anyway, your alternative back then was scratchbuilding or converting a Revell 17. I'm not sure but don't think KP have the rights to the Toko toolings. Also don't know if CMR ever did one, which the would have the rights to. The only kits I know of are very crude and early HR resins, although these days I don't trust my memory to guide me out of the house, so I may be wrong. If KP did do one, I'd hope as usual that they'd get their A team on the colour schemes and deal performance/design, but even the terrible ones I've had from their other WWI kits would at least in this case be an improvement on Toko, which were inflexible and shattered like badly stored old decals even when brand new. Worth keeping an eye out for second hand Roseplane accesories. They did resin cowlings and U/C legs which were quite good, and the legs I have for the Revell 28 haven't warped yet, and an 11 or 16 doesn't weigh a lot. Paul.

Presumably Nie 11 and 16, being Toko. I thought they all used the same size wheel in wartime. I'd pay little attention to whatever survivors in museums have, they've almost certainly been replaced over the years or at the very least re-tired, with no guarantee of the same type being used. The drawings in the Datafile specials (Nieuport Fighters volume 1 and 2) don't mention any changes, but I'll have a look over the weekend and see if there is mention in the text. IIRC, wheel diameter is mostly determined by aeroplane weight, and 11s and 16s are close enough to require no difference. Perhaps different sizes turned up in non-French service, once initial spares had run out. Paul.

Think Pegasus but with harder and brittler plastic, and large worms on the insides of parts to get that plastic to where it should be. Usually a few bits in white metal (E.G. U/C legs or canon barrels ) and wire mesh for DIY radiators (in Spitfire kits). Canopies vac but usually quite good. Having seen what you can do, I think you might actually enjoy building one. Maybe even two. Paul.

'The lute-like thing' looks like a round-back mandolin. Paul.

I found the assembly sequence a little unforgiving until you figured it out. It's one of those kits where you ideally build one without concern for screw-ups, then build one for real armed with the knowledge of just where it's all meant to go. that said, it came out okay in the end. Rule of thumb, if you're having trouble fitting something, then it isn't meant to go quite like that. Deep breath. Like many others,I too, have shaky hands (always have, one of the reasons I make models, to beat it down). Everyone varies but for me if stillness is essential then I can subdue it for a short while by breathing in deep, exhaling it all, and quickly doing whatever is being tricky before the next breath. Plus being prepared to do things over far too many times, and always using the least aggressive adhesive that will suffice for the job in case of pear-shapedness. Paul.

For French and some British props, a painted finish is what they had, so no laminations usually visible on an airscrew in good condition. Now, unless you model in 1/2 scale or above then any wood grain will also be invisible, but the eye expects to see something, same as with plywood fuselages like Albatrosses and Sopwith turtledecks. For a prop I paint a deep brown colour then several coats of translucent clear, usually a Citadel wash of a sepia nature. The real things may have suffered some weathering if they lasted long enough, but since they're just unsightly blotches I ignore them, unless I have a photo of the specific aircraft and it needs reproducing. Some British props were laminated from wood of very similar colour, which in 1/72nd I feel you could ignore, but in 1/48th I've masked and painted nearly the same colour strips before the sepia wash. Looks better than a plain brown colour anyway (although that might be more in keeping with reality). Making and applying really thin masking tape is not my favourite task though, but it isn't hard, just boring, and I do it normally for props that do show laminations well. Oh, just re-read the OP. I brush paint the sepia, just to work in a bit of faux texture in lieu of grain. Plywood on fuselages shows coarser grain patterns, so I do do that on the above named types, but only because it's expected, as I said before. Seeing photos of the real thing is essential, and I keep various sheets of plywood around the house to remind me. Light base coat, then if the grain is pronounced I draw the stuff on lightly with a dark brown watercolour pencil, if not then I dry brush a suitable pattern with an acrylic brown. The translucent overcoat is essential to smear things out a bit. Done right it the result is like using oils but dries much faster. Paul.

'Appen. Paul.

If they did (KP), it would be a plastic version of the CMR kit almost certainly, which is how they've done most of their recent biplanes. There may be no detail under the CMR wings, but at least the decal sheet is very good (the one I built had decals and PE, I don't recall if there was an earlier release without). Paul.

It's do-able, though. I'd just built one when another arrived in the post courtesy of Windsock for having a letter or photo published (I forget which) when it was all shiny and new. Won't be doing another though............... Paul.

Being before 12 noon on April 1st I was going to say you've got the position lights the wrong way round, but am not a naturally cruel man, and there are limits. Lovely job. Paul.

Hi Bob. They're still there, in these latter days. Pretty old-school webpage, but serviceable. https://www.internetmodeler.com/scalemodels/ Paul.

I'm glad people like it. Tempted to restart something else I parked a couple decades ago - a Starfix Freedom Fighter. I'd got as far as cutting out a hole for the Scarff ring then was distracted, probably by a blue car but it might have just been life. Anyway, I've calmed down a lot since then. Paul.

Someone gave me this . Not to build it would have been rude. So, for your delectation, an Albatros 109 (Very Early), license built by Messy-Smith. I left off the rigging. Ostensibly 1/48th, but who cares, really? Paul.

The DH4 was re-released two years ago in collaboration with Grand, who added decals, PE and resin to allow conversion to British or Greek Puma engined DH4s (and no, that does not make of it a DH9). Latest re-release is the early version SE5, which has new decals and a pair of vacformed canopies. I did an in box review in the GWSIG newsletter (1st one this year) and built it, which will be in the next newsletter. Also built and reviewed the DH4 conversion. The SE5 was always harder to build due to a meeting of limited run technology with rather complex but unavoidable parts breakdown due to the nature of the beastie. Built it anyway, and if I can then I'm sure others can. The DH4 is a nice and well thought out conversion, and it helps that the original kit fits together better and was already designed with lopping the nose off in mind. Anyone interested further in either of those PM me and I'll send links to the reviews. Paul.

Pegasus were produced over many years, and improved out of all recognition in that period. Veeday, less so (and Merlin went the other way). IIRC the Jenny and Dolphin are on the early side - later kits were boxed, had good decals, decent metal accessories, and either metal or extruded cut-your-own struts. Fairly accurate, but very limited run and needing much refinement, as you'd expect from kitchen table-top injection machinery. I have buil;t most of the Pegasus WW1 kits and rather like them. The post WWII types tend to being much more challenging, and the Spitfire variants are really rather rough. And I also have several interwar types which look as if they'll work out okay. But you do have to allow for the age. Shouldn't be hard to find online reviews. I'd start with Modeling Madness. Paul.

Unfortunately, this is one of those pedantic 'it depends' answers. If the cabanes are single struts as opposed to eg Ns like the Albatros above, then I only put them in first if they have no forward stagger, or only a little. Those on the Biff, for example - they're very nearly vertical in side view, so I can use a fastish polystyrene cement like Revell Contacta to get them to the point they're firm but not solid (takes about 10 minutes), then invert the model, drop glue in the top wing holes, and lower it carefully into place,poking the struts as needed and stopping any movement with bottles, coffee cups etc. After another 10 minutes you can turn the model over without the wing coming off, and jiggle it into the final desired position before again immobilising it. I call it the heart in the mouth technique, but it works. Give it a couple of hours and you should be able to spring the interplane struts in place with no problem. Something that has N cabanes can be done the same way, but without worring about the forward/backwards position of the wing. Just make sure it's central. Easiest to look from the front (so if not already on the undercarriage then jack the lower wings upto be level with your desk), and from the top, judged against the fin position, and lining up top and lower ailerons if it has them. If not sure of strut height, or if the cabanes have a lot of forward rake, then the surest but most time consuming way is to use a jig. You can build one easily enough from Lego and cardboard, but I use an Aeroclub jig which you can't get any more. Similar things are available, but not IMO quite as good. This allows you to locate the top wing in exactly the right positon before gluing anything, then you can adjust and trial fit all the struts as you go. Since everything is fixed securely you can even rig as you go, which makes accessing the central space much easier. If the interplane struts are Ns, then I always put those in first, checking the wing gap against plans before fully set. Think Fokker D.VII. One good reason never to use CA unless you can help it. If the kit is resin or the struts are brass then I use epoxy to glue, for the longest wibble time. Something like a Strutter, it depends on how good the kit engineering is. Ideally the W cabanes go in first, then the interplanes, but I've built a few Toko/Rodens in 1/72nd and 1/48th and they all needed adjustment. After the first Toko kit I changed to interplanes first, a simple Lego stop to prevent the top wing moving forward while the glue dried, then cut the W's apart and trimmed and fitted as needed. TBH the easiest setup I've found is where the cabanes are actually a cabane, i.e. a trestle where the top of the struts meet at the wing centreline. Usually you can get these on the fuselage easily enough, symettrical from the front, then glue to the top wing. Prop the end level while the glue half cures, then spring in the interplanes. In all the above cases it may help once something is definitely in the right place to reinforce the joint with a little thin CA applied with a pin. It needs precision if you have pre-drilled rigging holes to avoid zapping them. And after nearly 60 years of doing this I still have the odd total failure. You just have to be prepared for it, and it's often correctable with varying amounts of gnashing of teeth, wailing, etc, so long as you notice soon enough. HTH, Paul.

Also nice Hart/Audax by Aeroclub, AZ/Amodel and Merlin (shutupPaul). And lots of very expensive full kits and conversion bits from Kora. Paul.

Glad you found that - I don't have a list that matches serials to engines and didn't find a photo either on line or in the few books I have so wasn't able to say. I'll keep an eye out and let you know if anything more useful from a modelling point of view crops up. Cheers, Paul.

5 or more victories are attributed to him into SE5a D6922 according to https://www.europeansineastafrica.co.uk/_site/custom/database/default.asp?a=viewIndividual&pid=2&person=14054 . I've no idea how reliable that is, but D6922 is recorded as piloted by 2nd Lt Frank Edgar Bond when brought down (POW) on October 5th 1918 in a list of 74 Squadron casualties at https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/307841-74-squadron-creditsvictories-and-lossescasualties/ . The same site has this about Carlin: '1-Sep-1918 - Capt Sydney Carlin (Pow) - S.E.5a D6958 - last seen west of Lille in combat on patrol; Uffz Siegfried Westphal, Jasta 29, 2nd victory [east of La Bassée at 18:45/18:45] ?'. Both serials could be correct if he flew more than one SE5a of course. Likely, even. Paul.

Impressed. Paul.