Jump to content

Eduard 1/48th Sopwith F1 Camel.


Recommended Posts

    A quick build conducted just to find out once and for all which struts were reversed in the instructions.  This came up in the thread 'First build First World War 1/48th scale aircraft recommendations'. Years ago I'd stated somewhere or other as if handed down carved in stone from the mountain that the centre struts had the numbering mixed up, and this has been repeated here and there - I was reminded in this thread that someone else thought it was the interplane struts that were reversed, and by now I couldn't remember any of the details. Long story short, I thought the best way to be sure was to build another one. This is the result, and the upshot is it's the numbering of the front and rear interplane struts that is reversed. This is carried through into the current Revell re-boxing, so be warned. Also check the lower wing dihedral. It's moulded as one piece, and far too late in the day (i.e. when I'd already stuck the top wing to the centre struts) I found out that unmodified, the interplane struts were 2mm too short to fill the gap. Camel top wings were completely straight, so you need to bend the dihedral back at the lower wing roots. I just about did this to match the Windsock Datafile plans and continued assembly, but over a few days they went back down. The interplane struts were glued well enough that they stayed put, so the **** top wing bowed instead. Not happy. The avoidance behaviour you should adopt (apart from waiting for the new Eduard kit to come along) is to score the lower wing and bend it to the right dihedral before attaching it to the fuselage. Even then, I think for the next one I'll be a bit more exteme, cut them off, pin and re-attach.

 

    Anyway, I've not made a very good model from this - the elastic I used for rigging turned out far too thick, and being in a rush I left the axle/spreader bar as it was, which means the wheels don't splay as they should (Sopwith types usually had a split axle, takes about half an hour to replace the kit part, should have, didn't, regret regret regret). I'm also not at all sure how the streamers (supplied as decals) were attached. I've a photo of the aircraft in question but the angle is wrong. You'd expect them to be tied to the struts but they seem to be stuck to the top wing somehow. Only attached with white glue, so I can change it later if I ever find out.

 

 

51284114710_ee6870ef79_c.jpg

Camel by Paul  Thompson, on Flickr

 

 

 

 

Nice enough kit, can be built up much better than I did, and it leaves hald a spares box of unused parts as a memento, including from this Profipack version a load of PE bits, and a pre-painted Sutton Harness. Eduard used to put one of these invirtually everything RAF or RFC that they made a kit of, and as in this case a broad lap belt is more appropriate (I happened to have a PE one to hand so used it, but they're not hard to make from masking tape and fusewire).

 

Paul.

 

  • Like 25
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking good. I wouldn't beat yourself up about the end result. Someone not familiar with Camels wouldn't notice the issues you've pointed out. You're fighting the limitations of the kit and most of these are things you found out about the hard way. 

 

Being your own harshest critic is a great way to learn and improve. But if you're not careful you can suck the joy and motivation out of the hobby

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Gidge said:

I wouldn't beat yourself up about the end result. Someone not familiar with Camels wouldn't notice the issues you've pointed out. You're fighting the limitations of the kit and most of these are things you found out about the hard way. 

 

Being your own harshest critic is a great way to learn and improve. But if you're not careful you can suck the joy and motivation out of the hobby

All very true, but I have no excuse with this one except old age - I've built 3 of these, and used one with a (BlueMax) nightfighter conversion. Actually, the 2F1 Camel was a lot more fun for some reason, perhaps because with the cabanes for that version were different, and anyway there was no trouble with the lower wing.  Perhaps also I moan too much in writing - I actually had a lot of fun building this one, I was just disappointed that despite knowing the danger and making some effort to avoid it I've nonetheless gotten the bent wing effect. In fact the photo I've put up is from about the only angle except straight above where it doesn't look far too bad.

 

It's still a good kit by current standards, could do with better strut mounts but no deal breaker. The think I never liked was the rib representation on the wings, I much prefer the Blue Max treatment, their Camel also being a nice kit but quite limited run. Built 3 of those as well, way back when. A pity the engineering of both kits differs enough to prevent using the Blue Max wings on the Eduard kit without getting all hot and bothered, but maybe the new (I'll beleive it when I see it) kit will be an improvement. Then I can moan about it not being a challenge..........................

 

Hairtrigger, maybe I'm still too close to the finish line but I can't see it as anything but too thick.

 

Keith, thanks. Nice, crisp moulding to work with, helps when masking.

 

Thanks everyone.

 

Paul.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really good work on your Camel, Paul.  

 

Do you you have any more pictures of it from other angles?   

 

Interesting what you say regarding the cabane struts, and yes, I have read other sources that state the same about reversed struts - I must be doing something wrong then because I have built three of these kits over the years and used the struts as per the instructions and never encountered a problem ...........

 

Regards

 

Dave

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave, okay, just took these. I don't know why the top wing and fuselage look so different to the other PC10 surfaces, they're all painted and varnished the same way, and the mainplanes are at the same incidence. I can just about see a slight difference in sheen in real life, but nothing like in the photo. I'll have to assume this is a model of the aeroplane after a short, sharp rain shower. Or never photograph it again, which is most likely.

 

This emphasises the bowed top wing. Not quite so bad without the fish-eye effect of the lens.

 

51284876498_e798b1db55_c.jpg

Camel 2 by Paul  Thompson, on Flickr

 

 

This really exagerates the mystery sheen difference.

 

51284710486_2df2e927e2_c.jpg

Camel 4 by Paul  Thompson, on Flickr

 

 

And this just had to happen.

 

51284876398_8a240754d6_c.jpg

Camel 3 by Paul  Thompson, on Flickr

 

 

Paul.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Paul 

Looks good, that sheen difference is odd, shame about the Dihedral too.  

I thank you for the heads up re the struts,  I have a half built one of these sitting in the jig so will look at the struts and the Dihedral too.

Thanks again

Great work 

Chris

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Difference in sheen especially if less visible in real life shouldnt be a bummer. In fact in reality finish wasn't even on not so young planes. Reminds me of the enigma around pictures with differences on surfaces. These were probably not that different visually either.

 

Personally I love metal and wood parts on a Camel.

Edited by Steben
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a slap together job it looks pretty good Paul. Thanks for clarifying the interplane strut and dihedral issues. You have taken one for the team!
 

Regards,

Kent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I had real problems with the Eduard Camel and just couldn't get the upper wing to sit right. I made such a mess of it that I re-bought the kit and discovered that the original kit had wings of a completely different size, throwing off the strut connection points for the cabine struts. I wonder if this could be the root of some of the problems some people have had.

 

20210825_101545

 

 

 

20210825_101545

 

 

20210825_101603

 

 

Edited by markleecarter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, markleecarter said:

I had real problems with the Eduard Camel and just couldn't get the upper wing to sit right. I made such a mess of it that I re-bought the kit and discovered that the original kit had wings of a completely different size, throwing off the strut connection points for the cabine struts. I wonder if this could be the root of some of the problems some people have had.

What I think has happened there is that one kit was the F1 Camel, and the other was the 2F1. Different wings (and different struts). If not, then it's a mystery.

 

Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Paul Thompson said:

What I think has happened there is that one kit was the F1 Camel, and the other was the 2F1. Different wings (and different struts). If not, then it's a mystery.

 

Paul.

Ah yes, could be - I forgot that the 2F1 had smaller wings. The boxing and instructions were definitely not a ship's camel though and the cabine struts were certainly too long for the positioning of the upper wing holes. Maybe just a mix-up of which sprues were put in the box. Their new Camel should arrive on Friday so I'm hoping that will be an easier build!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, markleecarter said:

Ah yes, could be - I forgot that the 2F1 had smaller wings. The boxing and instructions were definitely not a ship's camel though and the cabine struts were certainly too long for the positioning of the upper wing holes. Maybe just a mix-up of which sprues were put in the box. Their new Camel should arrive on Friday so I'm hoping that will be an easier build!

According to my handy ready reckoner (old Blue Max instructions) the ship's Camel should have the shorter cabane struts, so it does sound like a sprue mix-up. FWIW the alternative struts and wings are arranged differently on the sprues in the two boxings so if you compare what you have to the instruction sprue diagrams it should be clear if this has happened or not,

 

I'm also awaiting the new Camel, and hope the wing ribs are less heavy handed. Very hard to tell from Internet photos. What I've seen looks promising though (although the Biggles decals will probably get consigned to an old Monogram kit).

 

Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the heads up. I assume then that the problem are the fuselage struts? They are mixed in the same side or are crossed?

 

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...