Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 19squadron

  1. DH5 is definitely possible, but I just have a feeling that if it's not a Nieuport, it might well be a 1/1/2 Strutter which was an important aircraft in the scheme of things.
  2. This is a British licence built Rhone 9Jb, of which the above UR.II is a copy, and totally different from the Rhone 9Ja top. All the books etc quote the Triplanr as being fitted with an Oberursel UR.II [with odd exceptions such as Josef Jacobs Clerget Triplanes] - however this is patently not true. WNW has pointed up 9Ja's in the three F.1's and "early Triplanes [look at the expanded diagram, - but it seems to me there are many Dr.1's fitted with the smaller engine.
  3. This is a genuine Oberursel UR.II. note two piece crank cover over an uprated main bearing, lightened rockers and more machining on the crankcase
  4. there are many Le Rhone engines - But these Fokker triplanes above all have a Rhone 9Ja or copy fitted. Above a Rhone 9Ja
  5. All the above aircraft appear to have Rhone 9Ja engines rather than Oberursel UR.II engines or Rhone 9Jb engines. I do not think this has been discussed much before - WNW have broached it in their F.1/Early Dr.1 kit, but not all the above aircraft are early Dr.1's.
  6. I bet [and hope] an Albatros D.D, D.II and D.III come along first - just look at the WNW language descibing the decals for the Roden kits in the Richthofen Albatros boxing.
  7. Yes and I wonder if that is in fact true? and not a myth? and in fact that most Dr.1's had a Oberursel copy of the Rhone 9Ja and pilots prized not a genuine Rhone but an Oberursel copy of a Rhone 9Jb, such as the one in Berlin with an Oberursel maker's plate, or the recovered Oberursel copy of a 9Jb from Richthofen's downed Dr.1 which was falsly credited as being a Le Rhone engine in april 1918 and is famously and mistakenly phgographed with a hand written sign saying "Richthofen's Le Rhone" -- and that both the Oberursel copy of the Rhone 9Ja and Rhone 9Jb are called
  8. Researching Oberursel's so called "UR.II, it seems there is a lot of conflicting evidence. Astute observers will note that many if not most wartime pics of F,1's and Dr.1's as wwell as E.v's credited with a 110bp Oberursel UR.II are in fact fitted with a Rhone 9Ja or copy of such. Whereas some Dr.1's and Richthofen's crashed and recovered tripe engine is credited as being a UR.II but is clearly in fact a copy of the Rhone 9Jb long stroke 130bhp engine. Did Oberursel in fact make copies of the short stroke 110bhp 9Ja and the long stroke 9Jb 130bhp engine and call them both "UR.II's?
  9. You's need more than a trilogy, 11 from 56 squadron, plus 60 squadron plus an Albatros,.....
  10. I have no doubt that will happen, but if there is a Duellists Fr1/Dr1 boxing I bet it will be with a Se5a Hisso of 56 squadron.
  11. Hopefully it will mean WNW will produce the earlier Albatros D types. I, II, and III.
  12. Yuo.... Voss and 56 squadron in their Hisso Se5a's, so it's an easy Duallists boxing
  13. Wings too square in my opinion to be a Pfalz, rear edge of rudder leads elevators too
  14. Given that WNW are also about to re -release an 80hp Le Rhone 9c, I'd guess that thius engine also powers the new kit. Given the aircraft that flew this engine, my guess would be a Bristol Scout or just possibly a Bristol M1, or yet more possibly a Nieuport 11?
  15. Absolutely, but no one will do it better than WNW, because no other manufacturer cares about the reseach as much as WNW do.
  16. I absolutely agree with you in your first paragraph. - for people who just want something easy to assemble I understand the attraction of Tamiya, though I see no real difference in the quality of WNW's engineering in that regard, however the "fiddlyness" of removing Tamiya rib tape in 1/48 or 1/32 and replacing something that more nearly matches the look of a real aircraft [Spitfire] far outweights the small part count in any kit in my view. Something that Tamiya could definitely learn to improve upon from WNW, and I'd sayditto with fueslage surface too. Time will tell
  17. Eduard's Mk IXc is out and has been for a long years and is better than the new Tamiya.
  18. The new 1/48TH scale Tamiya Spitfire Mk 1, is not that great, it has;- 1/really clumsy rib tape as per usual Tamiya in any scale 2/ no riveting of any description on the wings or fuselage, - the Eduard Mk IXc VIII kits have it beat there 3/ a very sharp crease in the fuselage following the canopy rail aft of the cockpit that is not right and a wrong curve to the top of the fuselage behind the cockpit 4/ an unfortunate cockpit arrangement to show the canopy open that again even Eduard managed to avoid. 5Eduard are already talking about a 1/48th Spitfire Mk I with
  19. ,,,,,, Wouldn't it be so much nicer if WNW did a Mk1 Spitfire, in early, mid and late boxings? It would be so much more accurate - imagine nicely done rib tape on the rudder and elevators etc, instead of Tamiya clumsy tape, imagine dome rivets behind the cockpit, overlapping panels and oil canning on a Spitfire. Now that would really be a WNW kit to look forward too -
  20. World poverty will have been eliminated once the WNW Lancaster is available to buy, the Be2c is in development, and Tamiya are shaking in their boots!
  21. I rekonit will totally eclipse Tamiya, who will be left looking like yesterdays game.
  22. Well said - I would not be at all surprised however that when numerous WNW kits are built and stand alongside the HK version for direct comparison, the scale of what WNW have done will become overwhelmingly apparent -[to most]!
  • Create New...