Jump to content

Good Roden 1/32 WW1 Aircraft kits


Peter Browne

Recommended Posts

What would be recommendations for 'good' Roden 1/32 kits?  

 

I have a CSM 1/32 Nieuport Late in the mail, but also generally looking if any Roden kits might be worth a visit.

 

Not particularly concerned with the aircraft type, but just a decent kit (good detail, fit etc...) and I would use AM decals. 

 

A SPAD VII would be nice...to go with the N17

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hallo

They are basicaly all good.

Some homework for details.

My way: I usually built WNW kits, choose Roden for fun and variants or types not available at WNW.

Basicaly I took the instruction from WNW and did some remarks or improvements according to it.

The painting guide ius much better.

Aftermarket you get from Yahoo and Quintas (Instruments) and Montex (masks).

Albatros I and III for instance.

SE.5 for instance.

happy modelling

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoyed the Pfalz D.III. I used photo-etch to replace the inspection hatch covers as the detail was a bit soft. The pe was also used for cockpit details.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any Roden kit is good. Just use genuine old school modelling skills and don't expect a shake-n- bake kit out of the box. Look for PART photo etch sets at Jadar Hobby or Hannants, Barracuda Cast resin details and resin wing stitching decals,  Aviattic for wing stitching photo etch and decals also other details. Check out Mike's World War One Models for pdf's on how to really get the most out of Roden kits.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2022 at 7:42 AM, dov said:

Hallo

They are basicaly all good.

Some homework for details.

My way: I usually built WNW kits, choose Roden for fun and variants or types not available at WNW.

Basicaly I took the instruction from WNW and did some remarks or improvements according to it.

The painting guide ius much better.

Aftermarket you get from Yahoo and Quintas (Instruments) and Montex (masks).

Albatros I and III for instance.

SE.5 for instance.

happy modelling

 

I would have to disagree about the SE5A kit.  I tried to build the 72nd kit and could not complete it because I had no idea where the forward cabane struts are supposed to go.  There are no locating holes and you have the two lumps hanging down (some kind of fairing for bell cranks or pulleys?)  I was hoping the 32nd kit would be better in that respect, and it IS NOT!  I haven't even tried to start it.  Very frustrating.  I like the way Monogram and Matchbox did the cabane struts on their biplane kits.  AZ on their Sopwith Swallow kit (or they may have put it out under the KP brand, still the same parent company) at least had the front cabane struts as one piece which made it a lot easier to set things up and to know exactly where the cabane struts go to.  Having little depressions on the bottom of the top wing with NO corresponding pin on the strut is not a way to do things.

Later,

Dave

 

P.S.  I have dozens of Roden kits in both 72nd and 32nd scale and some of them are very nice.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@e8n2

You built 72 scale. Me 32!

Read what I said: I use for kits available the instruction from WNW.

Often you have no holes, you can not find them easily. Here you must start with metal pins and get through. by original photos.

Roden kits needs more self made details and more researching.

They are never an easy pray.

The Dh.9 in 1/48 takes quite a lot of effort too. http://www.roden.eu/HTML/435.html

Happy modelling

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/1/2022 at 5:57 PM, Paul Thompson said:

Yes.

 

Paul.

I dont think Roden did, but Hobbycraft did a 1/32 SPAD 13 and IIRC recently re-issued it.  HTH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Icedtea said:

I dont think Roden did, but Hobbycraft did a 1/32 SPAD 13 and IIRC recently re-issued it.  HTH

Yes they did, 1/32nd scale. I know because I reviewed it and it's sitting in front of me now. That was the early version, (rounded wing tips). There was also due a late version but I don't recall if that came out before the current hiatus. Here's a link to somebody elses construction feature:  https://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?/topic/91198-132-roden-spad-xiii-of-jacques-roques/

 

Paul.

Edited by Paul Thompson
Spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think Ive ever seen it in Australia!  I still have my original Roden SVII though so that I can do Lenoirs aircraft.........one day. That said I'm restricted by a smaller house to 1/72 these days.

I had the HC kit a while back but it and all my large scale stuff (all but the SPAD SVII and a Wingnuts LVG) went to sales.)

Edited by Icedtea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, dov said:

@e8n2

You built 72 scale. Me 32!

Read what I said: I use for kits available the instruction from WNW.

Often you have no holes, you can not find them easily. Here you must start with metal pins and get through. by original photos.

Roden kits needs more self made details and more researching.

They are never an easy pray.

The Dh.9 in 1/48 takes quite a lot of effort too. http://www.roden.eu/HTML/435.html

Happy modelling

I have and will build both scales.  Later on this year I plan on building the WNW Roland D.VIb to go along with a 35th scale Liberty B truck at Wright Field.  The fact that they don't indicate where the forward cabane strut is supposed to go but have you guess about it and have dimples but no pins on the rear cabane struts is poor engineering.  You shouldn't have to use metal pins.  I have downloaded lots of WNW kit instructions because they do have very good information that can be used in any scale.

Later,

Dave

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/04/2022 at 06:03, e8n2 said:

I would have to disagree about the SE5A kit.  I tried to build the 72nd kit and could not complete it because I had no idea where the forward cabane struts are supposed to go.  There are no locating holes and you have the two lumps hanging down (some kind of fairing for bell cranks or pulleys?)  I was hoping the 32nd kit would be better in that respect, and it IS NOT!  I haven't even tried to start it.  Very frustrating.  I like the way Monogram and Matchbox did the cabane struts on their biplane kits.  AZ on their Sopwith Swallow kit (or they may have put it out under the KP brand, still the same parent company) at least had the front cabane struts as one piece which made it a lot easier to set things up and to know exactly where the cabane struts go to.  Having little depressions on the bottom of the top wing with NO corresponding pin on the strut is not a way to do things.

Later,

Dave

 

P.S.  I have dozens of Roden kits in both 72nd and 32nd scale and some of them are very nice.

Both 1/72nd and 1/32nd SE5a kits don't have holes for the fuselage end of the cabane struts because they fit into slots in the upper decking piece. On my examples at least the holes in the top wing are fine, all except one on the 1/72nd kit which has partially filled itself in. If the holes in the 1/32nd wing were any deeper they'd go through the top surface of the wing.  I don't recall offhand how the 1/48th kits stacked up although I've built a couple. I've always found the pegs adequate so long as scrupulously cleaned of paint, same for the hole. Early Eduard kits, on the other hand, have always had smaller and less positive dimples and nubs rather than pegs, which are harder to work with and which I do usually end up drilling and pegging.

 

 

Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Paul Thompson said:

Both 1/72nd and 1/32nd SE5a kits don't have holes for the fuselage end of the cabane struts because they fit into slots in the upper decking piece. On my examples at least the holes in the top wing are fine, all except one on the 1/72nd kit which has partially filled itself in. If the holes in the 1/32nd wing were any deeper they'd go through the top surface of the wing.  I don't recall offhand how the 1/48th kits stacked up although I've built a couple. I've always found the pegs adequate so long as scrupulously cleaned of paint, same for the hole. Early Eduard kits, on the other hand, have always had smaller and less positive dimples and nubs rather than pegs, which are harder to work with and which I do usually end up drilling and pegging.

 

 

Paul.

I looked specifically for the holes in the upper wing of the 32nd SE5A when I first got it and never found the ones for the forward cabane struts.  I agree about the early Eduard kits.  I built their J.I in 72nd a few years back and even with drilling the fuselage holes out it didn't help that much, but I got it done and for the most part it turned out nicely.  I used the painting suggestions from the WNW instructions for their J.I kit, which I also have!

Later,

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, e8n2 said:

I looked specifically for the holes in the upper wing of the 32nd SE5A when I first got it and never found the ones for the forward cabane struts.  I agree about the early Eduard kits.  I built their J.I in 72nd a few years back and even with drilling the fuselage holes out it didn't help that much, but I got it done and for the most part it turned out nicely.  I used the painting suggestions from the WNW instructions for their J.I kit, which I also have!

Later,

Dave

Well, all I can say is that mine has them. Built one, got another, and they're there. Since they must be made by protrubrances in the mould, I suppose they must have been weak and broke off by the time your kit was moulded, which is unlucky to say the least. I wonder if they ever fixed it?

 

Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Paul Thompson said:

Well, all I can say is that mine has them. Built one, got another, and they're there. Since they must be made by protrubrances in the mould, I suppose they must have been weak and broke off by the time your kit was moulded, which is unlucky to say the least. I wonder if they ever fixed it?

 

Paul.

I just pulled mine out of the closet in my bedroom and darn these Mk I eyeballs!  I see the holes for the upper end of the forward cabane struts now.  Maybe I'll get started on it later on this year.  Elliot White Springs while assigned to 85 Sqdn.  I think Pheon had that in their 32nd scale sheet and I know they had it on their 72nd scale sheet.  Darn, thought I might have had the Pheon 32 scale sheet, but no joy, and unfortunately it seems Pheon is no longer with us.  The last I checked their website the domain name was for sale.  With the markings in the kit and stealing from other kits I can still do his aircraft, or make up another order for custom decals if need be.

Later,

Dave

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, e8n2 said:

I just pulled mine out of the closet in my bedroom and darn these Mk I eyeballs!  I see the holes for the upper end of the forward cabane struts now.  Maybe I'll get started on it later on this year.  Elliot White Springs while assigned to 85 Sqdn.  I think Pheon had that in their 32nd scale sheet and I know they had it on their 72nd scale sheet.  Darn, thought I might have had the Pheon 32 scale sheet, but no joy, and unfortunately it seems Pheon is no longer with us.  The last I checked their website the domain name was for sale.  With the markings in the kit and stealing from other kits I can still do his aircraft, or make up another order for custom decals if need be.

Later,

Dave

 

Whoops. I was about to say they were still about but indeed the website has gone down. Last I heard there were once again IT problems but due to be sorted, as always. I'll have an ask about and see what's up.

 

Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having half (quarter?) built the Roden SPAD VII I can offer this:

 

The panels are too thick to fit around the engine.  Solution is to leave out the engine.

 

The cooling panels around the engine changed during production and should be checked against your subject if you care about such things.  The cooling holes are just depressions, and that's probably not good enough in 1/32.  I used a Dremel to thin mine from behind to open them up: the difference between opening the cooling holes and grinding a hole in the panel is very little.  There was a PE kit for these by somebody which might be worth it.

 

The radiator face is also lacking detail.  The cockpit could use more work but it has a good basis, this is probably quite satisfying work to do.

 

With lots of test-fitting, the model looks good. Despite my complaints I don't regret buying the model.

 

It's a shame Pheon closed because they always seemed to be sold out of everything whenever I looked.  I'd love decals for a 19 Squadron plane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a several Roden kits and they aren't as refined as WNW and need a bit more work but can be built into nice models with some work. With the plastic being a bit softer, I think the struts may need to be handled with care as they could break or bend over time due to the weight.

 

The main one to watch out for is the Sopwith Triplane. I think it might be based on drawings of the prototype so the length is a little on the short side which could be corrected with a bit of work as can be seen here.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, FZ6 said:

I have a several Roden kits and they aren't as refined as WNW and need a bit more work but can be built into nice models with some work. With the plastic being a bit softer, I think the struts may need to be handled with care as they could break or bend over time due to the weight.

 

The main one to watch out for is the Sopwith Triplane. I think it might be based on drawings of the prototype so the length is a little on the short side which could be corrected with a bit of work as can be seen here.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Mark

I've not had problems with the wing struts, but most undercarriage vees (except the Spads, which are thicker) are rather wobbly. It helps if you rig structurally.

Oh, and I've tried a couple of the SAC white metal sets, and  found them to be much worse than the original plastic. They bend just as easily, but stay bent of course becaue they're not plastic, then after you tease them back into shape they fatigue and break straight away. Cast brass is what you need,  as Aerocraft do for the Meng Fokker Triplane and a couple of other kits. But barrring that, invisible thread/fly-tying line is your best bet, but even 0.3mm wire fixed with CA or epoxy helps.

 

 

Paul.

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
×
×
  • Create New...