Roden 1/32 Fokker D.VI etch? Would Dr.1 etch be useful?

[Beardie]

Hi all in the next couple of weeks I will be starting to build the Roden Fokker D.VI in 1/32 and I am looking for PE for it. It occurs to me that, with the great similarity to the Dr.I that the Eduard PE set for that might do just fine but not sure. I don't believe there is a set specifically for this model but will be happy to be corrected and maybe directed to a source.

[Paul Thompson]

There's a set by Part of Poland for around 15.00 Euros. Here's a link to it at Jadar Hobby. They're probably the easiest way to get it.

HTH, Paul.

[Beardie]

Thanks Paul, I have never used anything from part, are they good? I tried looking for their stuff through the usual UK shops but nobody seems to keep them. Is Jadar hobby good to deal with?

[Paul Thompson]

Jadar are supposed to be reliable, but I've not used them myself. I've used a lot of Part sets though. They were the first people to regularly bring out sets for Roden kits, and Toko before them. TBH they're a mixed bag. They almost always include a set of wire wheels, which are hardly ever needed, and full interior frameworks which are often hard to fit, and also often need beefing up to make more 3D. In the case of Fokkers the framework was tubular metalwork, and although you could just get away with it in 1/72nd it needs modification in 1/32nd. Then there are also parts that if you succeed in making them are more detailed than the kit bits, but need a devilish devotion to duty and a passing aquaintance with dark ancient deities to succeed with. Like control colums in laminations. Which all sounds very negative, but they also have the things you really need, like safety harnesses and perforated gun cooling jackets. Put it like this, I approach every set expecting to not use up to half of it, but the leftovers usually end up being used with something else down the line for which they were never intended.

The sets are very well etched, using relief etching on both sides where appropriate. Not prepainted, but the brass is fairly thin and folds easily. I've not seen the Eduard DrI set, but looking at it on Hannants I'd say the Part set was actually more useful and doesn't cost a lot more. Shame Hannants doesn't carry it. If you don't want to try Jadar, might be worth looking around Ebay. Aviation Megastore in the Netherlands lists them at just short of 16 Euros, and they have one set left. I used to live close to them and shopped there a lot, they're okay to deal with but the postage might be steep, and they currently say they have just one set in stock. A friend of mine went to see them a few weeks ago and doesn't think they update their database very often. Link anyway: http://www.aviationmegastore.com/detailset-fokker-dvi-roden-s32029-part-etchings-s32-029-aircraft-scale-modelling-detailsets/product/?action=prodinfo&art=88138 .

Cheers, Paul.

[RHWinter]

I have ordered from Jadar twice so far: Quick shipping, good packaging. So no complaints at all!

The Fokker D.VI is one of my favourites and I have Roden's 1:32 kit. Got me PE from Part (via Jadar), guns from Gaspatch and a resin motor from I don't remember... Lozenge decals from Aviattic I want, as well as some goodies like belts from HGW. You might have noticed: I really like the plane! (But will I ever start building the kit?)

Keep us up to date with your build and have fun!

[Beardie]

Thanks for the input. I will be ordering the Dr.I set from Eduard anyway for a Roden 32 Dr.I so I will have a look at that one in the flesh when it arrives an will go for the part one for the D.VI and compare the two. I have to admit that I have always wanted that 'Fratz' schemed one sitting on the shelf. Something about the humour of the face appeals as does the face on Voss's F.I.

Currently about halway or more through my 1/32 Albatros D.III (using Eduards etch set to replace soft kit details) which I have found a delight as far as fit is concerned. Even the top cowl of the fuselage only required a little filling and all the panel lines line up perfectly so it will be a couple of weeks before the Fokker D.VI goes under the knife and glue.

[GrahamB]

Hi Beardie,

I've had one of these as a stalled project for a couple of years - the DR1 etched is very useful.

Please be aware that most published plans of the Fokker D.VI - including the Datafile - are in error re the fuselage and wing configuration. The wings are actually not "staggered' as shown in plans (apart from a builder's version in the Datafile) and most models, but have the trailing edges of the upper and lower perpendicular to each other. The manufacturer's measurements of the upper and lower wing chords and the forward set of the upper plane match.The fuselage needs lengthening by 5-6 mm too (including the top cowl piece) - this is because the D.VI had two wing spars not one as in DR1. The mgs sit in their normal place, so are set back a little more from the cowling - you can see this in photos. You need to get the lower wing fitted so the trailing edge more or less lines up with the slight 'break' in the cockpit-coaming leather.

I'll check on my model and give you some more info - I'm just writing this offhand at the moment.

Not a simple out-of-the-box build if you want accuracy - but blame the plans.

Cheers

GrahamB

Edited August 8, 2016 by GrahamB

[Beardie]

Thanks for the information Graham. Sounds a bit of a headache to be honest. Unfortunately I have neither the knowledge of the machine or the expertise to make the adjustments of which you speak. I might just leave this one on my shelf where I can admire the pretty picture on the boxtop and do something else for the moment.

[GrahamB]

It would still be a very nice model if you built it more or less out of the box. What the heck!

Didn't mean to be a wet blanket with this - just that it annoys me when some kit manufacturers etc don't really check before they commit to production.

Cheers

GrahamB

[Beardie]

Hi Graham,

I know what you mean. I have the Roden Sopwith tripe as well and the general consensus seems to be that that one is also too short. Just a shame the Wingnut Sopwith Tripe is long since sold out and I unfortunately only decided to make the jump to 1/.32 scale this year.

[Beardie]

Hi Graham, I was looking around for further evidence of the problems with the kit and I have just read a review by someone called Tom Solinski on iternetmodeller which I had read before but not take notice of. He says that the dimensions of the kit are actually correct.

This is the relevant part of his review:

First things first a BIG APOLOGY to Roden. THEY are CORRECT in their dimensions on this kit! In my inbox review I strongly questioned Roden’s use of the Dr.I fuselage in lieu of using a lengthened version as indicated in the references I had at hand. Since that time (in a great weekend at a full-scale and R/C WW-I fly-in at the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton Ohio) I’ve acquired the Albatros Productions Datafile on the Fokker D.VI, which clarified the length issue. For the January 1918 competition Fokker submitted two Dr.I based biplane prototypes that were slightly larger than the Dr.I because they were designed around more powerful engines. The V13/1 had a 130 Hp Oberursel U III and the V13/2 a 160 Hp Siemens – Haske Sh III engine. After the contract was awarded it became clear that neither of these higher power engines was going to be available in sufficient quantities. So Fokker shrunk the winning design to more effectively use the output of the very available 110Hp UR-II. Thus, the THIRD design airplane that was the one submitted for actual type testing by the German military had the same dimensions used by Roden in this kit.

[GrahamB]

Hi Beardie,

I believe that the DR1 fuselage does not work with the broader 2-sparred lower wing and one can see in photos the trailing edge match up up with mid-cockpit as well as the increased gap between the MG muzzles and the engine cowling. The Datafile is simply wrong. It has nothing to do with engine size. Both the German army plan and French report show the perpendicular wing arrangement (trailing edge) - although the former shows true stagger in the plan view! Albatros Datafile itself gives chord upper 1.60m, lower 1.20m, stagger 0.40 m: therefore trailing edges line up.

Got the thing out of the box to show you the basic work needed. I'm inspired to get on and finish it now.

Doing one of the Austro-Hungarian airframes with the early arrangement of 'cabane' struts. Setting up the wings will be a challenge.

Cheers

GrahamB

[Beardie]

Graham are the wings in the kit the correct dimensions?

If so I guess I could have a go at lengthening the fuselage without too much of a struggle.

[Beardie]

Graham just looked at the Wikipedia entry and this adds to the confusion. There is a drawing with annotations in German which looks like an official drawing from Fokker Flugzeugwerke and shows a side view with the trailing edge of the lower wing around about level with the rear of the cockpit opening and upper wing trailing edge around the middle of the cockpit.

Ach I don't know. If only I could find some good straight side-on views of the aircraft in service so that I could see the real thing, Every image I have seen online (Drawings, 1/3 scale RC models and kit builds) show the trailing edges as being staggered although their locations relative to the cockpit seem to vary a little.

[GrahamB]

Hi Beardie,

it is a mess because the few (contemporary/near contemporary) plans available are at odds with each other. There are no really good side views (photos) that I've seen yet but from a few one can extrapolate the geometry/intersection of the lower wing with the fuselage reasonably accurately. It is significant that there is a clear gap between the port-side footstep and the trailing edge in photos - matching my model's configuration. If you build from box you will see that the trailing edge lines up with the step (and rear of cockpit) - not right, too far back.

The wings are fine in the kit for span and chord.

Cheers

GrahamB

[Beardie]

Thanks Graham. I will need to think about this model and do some studying. The temptation is to choose the path of least resistance and just build out of the box. The problem with giving in to that temptation is knowing now that it will be incorrect. Modelling is never easy is it