Jump to content

19squadron

LSP_Members
  • Content Count

    102
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About 19squadron

  • Rank
    LSP Junkie

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Mk IX's were basically MkV's re engined, and retained most of the internal layout of the MkV including 24v regulators on the back of frame 11. Mk VII Mk VIII, MkXII and MkXIV etc were all total redesigns of all srtuctures bar C wings and all systems and they do not have any regulator mounted on the back of frame 11,
  2. The Voltage regulator fitted to the back of frame 11 on a MkI, Mk II or MkV Spitfire is a 12 volt regulator that has a simple on off toggle swith to operate next to the volt meter and ammeter on the instrument panel. The Voltage regulator with twin barrels fitted to some Spitfire Vc's and MkIX's is a 24volt regulator fitted in comnjunction with a major rediesign of the whole aircrafts' electrical system in late 1942. The dials and switch remain in the same position on the instrument panel. All spitfires built with a Merlin II engine - ie K9787 up to K9980 had a differen
  3. And what is interesting about these shots is that there are ;- no pads on the wing leading edges no inspection hatch between cowl and carb intake and no [visible] rib tape. so what are the odds that WNW finished the tooling? or that Meng had a hand in those final details?
  4. Exactly very odd because what you say might well have been true were Wingnut Wings conceived or run as any other normal commercially driven company - but it wasn't, it was the personal plaything of one individual who started the company, paid it's way out of his own pocket, selected himself all the aircraft to be CAD Modled and released, and always did as he chose rather than consider any other priority, including profit. Personally I am so glad the Gotha G1 was produced, but you have to remember this is a man who built his own flying Handley Page 0O/400 and his
  5. They are protective pads that the wing rested on when the wing was dismantled and set on the ground, the pads changed positions throughout F1 /Dr1 manufacture. See Windsock Dr1 special for details.
  6. Yes, the wing tape is wrong too -
  7. I agree, except that I suspect the production run of Gotha' G1's etc that is not yet sold is held in storage at WNW warehouses, and therefore technically went "OOP" at the point they were announced [ with the recent somewhat surprising WNW reissue of the Fokker DVII and Clerget Camel] However I make the point that CSM sales of Nieuports on ebay were very low by comparision to WNW Gotha G1's even before the Covid Lockdown and WNW shutdown, which makes the point that Wingnut Wings sales were NOT just driven by subject, but also by their reputation, rapidly growing towards an ever wid
  8. That's the oddest thing I have seen written in a long time!
  9. Personally I love the fact that WNW did them because they are part of the history of WW1 aviation, and the evolution of aircraft design, and precisely because no other kit manufacturer did them, I am so glad that WNW did rather than for instance a ... Spad.... for which there are already Roden kits. As far as sales are concerned the EWNW Gotha G1 and UWD seem to outsell CSM Nieuports on ebay manyfold if you lock at the ebay "sold" lists and I note this from Dave on the WWI Aircraft form just recently. "With the closure of Wingnut Wings, modellers' expectations for new r
  10. Why not? - Meng's product line is pretty haphazard.
  11. I think the Roden kit is excellent and exceedingly buildable, it just misses the research and fine detail that Wingnut Wings were so good at. You are right about the SE5a, in fact the Junkers J1 is the weakest of the WNW kits in my opinion - since cleartly WNW got better and better as time went by to reach the standard of their Dolphin and Camel. All of which misses the point - which was since the Meng release appears to have clumsy rib tape on the main wings or at least the middle wing, it would seem reasonable to guess that it is their own design rather than a purloined or bought
  12. I agree Radu, plus there are some awkward details on the "Meng" CAD - noticably the clumsy rib tape on the middle wing, which are mistakes Wingnut Wings would not make.
  13. Well you get the codes in the Revell MklIa kit, probably the best that can be said about that kit.
  14. You are absolutely right, the Hobby Boss is wrong there, but The Revell kit looks pregnant and the nose is too long, and I'd say those are EVEN worse faults than the Hobby Boss failure. All in all it says a lot that THE most important aircraft ever designed, THE most beautiful aircraft ever designed, engaged iin the single most important aircampaign ever fought, has not been well molded and made available in 1/32. AND it makes the demise of WNW as the one company who singlemindedly researched and produced beautiful accurate models in 1/32 is in serious trouble or foreve
×
×
  • Create New...