Paul Thompson

There are quite a few photos of WW1 era planes parked in trees or on top of houses, and for obvious reasons they're mostly trainers like the Airco DH6, relatively slow and survivable. I can't recall ever seeing one on a tower of any sort though. Paul.

Another vote for the Falcon canopy set, but also for the Airwaves PE set, which although far from perfect provides a decent interior. 10 squids from Hannants but it is quite extensive. https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/AEC72203?result-token=CqGD6 Paul.

It is, I have one of the original AZ boxings as well as the one by Freightdog. Oh, hang on, I screwed up. Freightdog did buy up and resell some sprues and PE sets with AZ instructions but no decals and sold them very cheaply, then Aviattics sold the rest with their decals and a set of PUW bombs. And they're now sold out. I'll go back and ammend my original post. Despite having both those reissues mentioned above, I'm still looking for a reasonably priced (i.e. dirt cheap) Aurora kit for nostalgia purposes. I only have the nacelles left from the one I built over 50 years ago. Paul.

We can but hope. I don't know if CMR did one, but if so then that would be more likely, and to be honest, from what I've seen, a KP plastic version would almost certainly be no improvement quality wise on the Ardpol kit. Although I'd still get one and use the wings on my Ardpol kits, as well as the struts if they're good enough, just to avoid resin warping. The universe is imperfect though, and while it's be very nice if the kit was a good 'un, I'd rather they made even a mediocre one than none at all, which is why I always buy at least one of their WW1 kits. Same for the Nieuports. I've built several of the Toko kits, but there is always room for more 11s and 16s. Paul.

Presumably the ex - Hippo one they re-released a few years ago, also re-released first by Freightdog, cut price but no decals, then by Aviattic with a lot of upgrades and new decals. The latter two re-releases are now sold out. Paul.

Ah, that could be a problem then. Paul.

Bit of context, Hannants have been having problems getting regular supplies of both Xtracrylix and color for years, not months. So I wouldn't worry just yet (and I hope that's not famous last words, being quite fond of them myself). Paul.

To be fair, it was a moderately successful retooling (in the sense of major fettling) of the unreleased and apparantly quite nasty Merit (the very, very old one) kit (hope I got that right). Paul.

Given the KP WW1 operating proceedure of converting existing resin kits to plastic (amongst a few others), I wonder what the Avros will be based on. Very pleased (and suprised) if a new tool, less so if it's based on the HR resin, since those were very poor copies and adaptations of the Airfix kit (which itself is okay given the age, but needs a few corrections such as cockpit locations as well as total modernisation). If an AZ production and on a par with their other biplane kits I'd be happy with that. Didn't realise the Bf 109 was a WWI jobbie though...................... Looks to be an ambitious programme. Paul.

Happy. Last year I finally built one of the Pyro/Lindberg/Lifelike kits, and while it looks like a Bulldog with a modicum of work, this one should be easier and look better. Plus I'll have two sets of spare decals for the remaining Pyros............... Rigging on a Bulldog isn't particularly complex, or hard to do, and I hope nobody is detered by it. Paul.

I didn't mean you, I meant generally. Many people I've read couldn't cope with the minor fettling needed due to the parts breakdown (which was to maximise the number of variants possible from the basic tooling, same as the Gothas). Coupled with the admittedly bad decals this seems to have pushed many people over the edge. Which is a shame. Paul.

I've built several D.IIIs from Roden and Meikraft, and despite the undeserved (IMHO) bad rep of the former quite enjoyed them. Also the Pegasus kits, which were more work but still good. However, the D.III was blessed with tons of varied colour schemes so I'm happy to see this one announced and will be in the market, as they say, for several. Nice, and they'd have to work hard to make a mess of it. Which I don't expect. Paul.

First in their new line of 1/16th WW1 house extensions, the Handley Page V/1500. As any fule kno. Paul.

It may well be smart, but they didn't create the market. Modern 1/35th aircraft kits have been around for some time from, amongst others Takom, although initially the emphasis was on helicopters and gliders like the Horsa (clearly meant to fit in with 1/35th armour for dioramas) IIRC. There have been many other aircraft kits in this scale going back to the fifties, they're just not largely available anymore so have dropped out of the general consciousness. Paul.

Good luck. He's usually fairly amenable to such things. I'm well into the heavy fettling stage now, trying to get the Vickers to sit nicely. Much filing and swearing needed, and the disturbing thing is I can't remember how I did it last time. I can see that it will eventually go though, and this along with fitting the cowling panels is the hardest part of the model to get right. Well, that and getting the canopy to sit right, which will still be hard even with the vac part due to the complex and asymetric shape of the opening, and I can't fault anyone for that. I think the canopy will need a tiny squeeze to match the opening, and more seeing to over the gun hump, but I'd much rather do that with the vac than the injected piece. I just checked my original model, and was reminded by the caption on the old WW1 Modelling page gallery entry that the first one I had was blessed with several short shots - can't remember where now, but it obviously bothered me at the time. The other one I got way back then, and this one, have no short shots, so I guess I was unlucky first time. Paul.

Yes, emphasising ribs/rib tapes can be really tricky. Sometimes in real life they hardly show, sometimes they appear darker than, and sometimes lighter than the surrounding surface. What struck me looking at photos of currently flown examples like the Shuttleworth Avros and SE5a is that the tape is much the same as the surround, but the edges can get really dark due to a slurry of castor oil residue, dead insects, and general grot. From a distance it then looks as if the tape is darker or lighter dependant on the ambient light. Obviously that's only for camouflaged machines. As usual, there's no right way, but there are lots of wrong ones. That's why I only make or reinstate ribs these days with oversprayed decal strip, or mark them with a double scored line and maybe run very slightly lighter or darker paint in with a brush, oversprayed or not according to whatever photos I've dredged up of the real thing. And if I'm really lazy I use a watercolour pencil instead of paint, which can be easily removed if I don't like it. Less is more, and all that. Paul.

A small addendum regarding the rigging. Dragon tried to make it as easy as possible by providing PE attachments to add to the strut ends, with holes in them into which you're supposed to tuck the supplied wire, and each length is given in mm on the instruction sheet. Now, the PE is very thick and springy so needs annealing, and you have to make sure the strut holes (or slots in this case) in the plastic are free of paint and the strut locating tabs filed down a bit, or you won't get them to fit, but having done that it all fits at the correct orientation quite accurately. A pity the wire is too thick, but as I said I'll try it next time using fishing line, and it should look better. There are two errors on the instructions. The minor one is missing out the lines from cabame strut inwards to the top decking of the fuselage, but this varied and you'd need something like the Windsock datafile to check anyway. More visibly, they show the flying wires as single whereas they were always doubled, which means a bit of re-routing to make space to fit them. Nothing tricky if forewarned. Thanks again everyone for the kind comments. Paul.

Thanks (and everyone else) but that's largely down to the kit. The Eduard one looks more like a Spad, and comes with many more options and better decals in several boxings, but the Dragon kit is accurate enough, and is engineered to go together relatively easily for a biplane. I'm sure anyone with a couple of prior WW1 models completed would have no trouble getting this kit at least to the level I have, and I've seen them done far better than I ever sould. Paul.

Thanks Pat, but it's1/48th. The only 1/72nd kits I know of are Eduard (best by far, I've built a couple), Revell (good for it's day, a long time ago, and actually slightly larger than 1/72nd), CMR resin, Meikraft and last and definitely least the Endon/Fuji/Escii/Italeri/Academy et al kit. Paul.

Yes. Generally very good, especially those designed by Gordon Stevens. Although personally I find the current Ebay prices somewhat less than reasonable, but all things are relative. Paul.

Thanks John. Those two best hide the not-so good, self-induced whoopsies - one of the doubled flying wires on the starboard side slipped a fraction and I can't for the life of me shift it. It's made the spacing too wide at the fuselage end. It is quite visible, but here it is anyway: Paul.

This is by now an old kit but still good. I got this one at SMW this year for a tenner, which would have been rude to refuse, and decided to do a quick OOB build. This is the result, but I substituted some equally old Errormaster decals for an Italian job. Nice kit, although the decals were a bit cranky with age. The kit contains wire for rigging but too large a gauge. Since I was expending minimal effort here I used some Albion Alloys 0.2mm nickel wire along with the PE fittings in the kit. I have some more of these kits and will resort to fishing line in future because it will look better. Paints are White Ensign Colourcoats for the French 5-colour camo, with similar Citadel paints for the metal parts, and unsimilar Citadel paints for the woodwork. I couldn't see much in the way of propellor laminations, and some French manufacturers were in the habit of painting their props anyway, so just added some coats of clear sepia over the base coat (which was Humbrol 93 acryllic. Paul.

Much to my suprise I was offered one of these for review, at Telford, and it arrived a few weeks ago. Re-release of a Pegasus kit under the auspices of Freightdog, with new vac-formed canopy (2 copies) and completely re-done transfers (although for the same aircraft as before. The usual limited run Pegasus fare, although the new decals are much sharper (as well as much more accurate) and the canopy neatly replaces the thick industrial bottle glass simulation originally supplied. I've built one when it first came out and it goes together fine with a modicum of old-school effort, and comparing to the spare in the stash the plastic is unchanged, i.e. no more flash than earleir, which is what you'd expect since I doubt any new pulls will ever come from the old moulds (although I didn't ask). The metal content is cleanly cast and includes undercarriage legs. The defining feature of the early SE5, apart from wider span wings with raked wing, different radiator, minor cowling changes and different exhausts, was the glasshouse canopy, which pilots hated. So you can build a really early example from the kit, or one as modified in the field by the removal of the canopy, courtesy of two sets of fuselage halves reflecting changes in the cockpit opening. Building now. The review will be in the free Great War SIG newsletter, Cher Ami. Unless I make a mess I'll drop a photo in RFI here. Old news now but I also got an old Dragon Spad XIII at Telford, which I done gone built already in a weak moment. Still a nice kit, worth building, but if you ever have the chance of it or an Eduard for similar price then the Eduard is substantially better. Paul.

No, I did understand that but wanted to make sure he knew in case he got his hopes up. Looking back, I wasn't clear enough, but that often happens when I know what I mean................. Paul.

They're there but I couldn't see them with the search engine so had a look at their 1/32nd belts. Here's a link to what is probably most suitable, for a DH9: https://hgwmodels.cz/en/132-scale/319-amc-dh9-seatbelts-132-132538.html Quickest just to get a reference picture is to look under HGW on the Hannants site. Over 800 hits, so be warned. Paul.