19squadron

That's the oddest thing I have seen written in a long time!

Yes, I also read the discussions on FB. Because this comes from the WNW designer I am inclined to believe it. Just like many others my trust in utterances coming from people outside WNW is becoming increasingly thin. This proves yet again that all those people who claimed to know intimately all the goings on inside WNW had no idea this was going on altogether. Remember the insane "feeding frenzy of stupid" over the fate of the moulds? Not a single one of those guys who spoke with such "authority" ever mentioned MENG. Now the same guys say that they knew this all along and that it was "widely known". Bullplop! 
As I said, either way I am happy that we are getting a new Dr.1. 
Radu
 
Later edit: David Parker has photos of the parts on FB. Link

The G 1 is getting a lot of mentions here, and I appreciate that it had minimal actual use, but I love the oddity of it and admire WnW for making it. Might have to try and find one somewhere. Oddities just like Art House movies, however don't pay the rent!
 
Steve

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.

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 Wingnut Wings design.
 
 

Me too. I'm still annoyed that after waiting ten years for it, WNW falls on its face just prior to releasing theirs. Perhaps this one will bridge the gap between the Rodent kit and the WNW version, assuming this is not the WNW kit.

As I have 4 Roden tripes, I'm good. I am interested to see the kit and always glad to see new 1/32 kits hit the market.

There is a more significant problem in that the nose of the Revell kits is too long by 3mm forward of the canopy, and the fuselage is too wide and the wrong shape midway along the fuselage. To my mind the "new" Revell Spitfire mk 11a is one of the most inaccurate and the worst kit released in 1/32 for a very long time. Much better to start with a Hobby Boss mk V and alter the wing canon armament, the Revell just is all wrong.

You might want to wait for the upcoming Eduard Spitfire Mk1 in 1/48 due out in august. There has been an enormous amount of research put into getting that kit correct with several early variations, and it may well be useful to you as a template for a 1/32 model.

In 1938 the straight topped canopy's were rapidly replaced, and in the press shots of the squadron lined up there are aircraft with both balooned tops and straight tops, so you'd have the option in 1938.
The hydraulic resevoir behind frame 11 fed the manual undercarriage lift, it was present on K series L series and P series Spitfires and even the first MkII's built at Castle Bromwich. The hydraulic resevoir moved to underneath the engine cowling on aircraft with non manual undercarriage lift. The pilots oxygen tank is always in the same place behind frame 11 underneath the hydraulic resevoir on early aircraft.
All early Spitfires had no voltage regulator at all [except the pilot] the battery charge was controlled by a three way switch on the instrument panel, 12v voltage regulators were fitted to reduce pilot workload in N series aircraft. All these early aircraft had Merlin II's which had significantly different wiring/instrument panel etc than aircrft built with the Merlin III.

The Tamiya kit is dimensionally accurate and compares well to original Supermarine drawings I have, the Revell kit is and looks all wrong.
 
the Revell kit is 3mm too long in the fuel tank armour and engine cowl combined, and its about 3mm too wide across the fuselage at the cockpit door.

In 1938 the straight topped canopy's were rapidly replaced, and in the press shots of the squadron lined up there are aircraft with both balooned tops and straight tops, so you'd have the option in 1938.
The hydraulic resevoir behind frame 11 fed the manual undercarriage lift, it was present on K series L series and P series Spitfires and even the first MkII's built at Castle Bromwich. The hydraulic resevoir moved to underneath the engine cowling on aircraft with non manual undercarriage lift. The pilots oxygen tank is always in the same place behind frame 11 underneath the hydraulic resevoir on early aircraft.
All early Spitfires had no voltage regulator at all [except the pilot] the battery charge was controlled by a three way switch on the instrument panel, 12v voltage regulators were fitted to reduce pilot workload in N series aircraft. All these early aircraft had Merlin II's which had significantly different wiring/instrument panel etc than aircrft built with the Merlin III.

There's just about no unsold dealer stock left anywhere in the world as we speak, and "even" the unloved Gotha I is selling fast from Hannants and on ebay, give that a few more weeks and they will all be gone too.
 
So how many other manufacturer's could ever say their kits have sold so fast for so much money in such a short time? and where are the Tamiya kits or any other injection molded manufacturer selling for £200 - £300 plus?
 
If that does not show just how prized thes kits are, and what a demand there is for them, then cows can fly as far as I am concerned. I am in no doubt the kits are far far better than Tamiya or anybody else's.
 
I am sure there are other issues that only those that worked directing that company really understand that are at play here, right now what has happened is a tragedy, and that is enough! everything else is somewhat churlish speculation which serves no one, and achieves nothing.
 

If one reads the very last couple of sentences in the article, you might be inclined to think otherwise:
 
 

Obviously people make statements which change over time. But saying that they will not make a Dr1 10 years ago isn't in the same ballpark as saying things are grim in this pandemic. Even though this is second hand info I believe the sources. It is good to question hearsay but you need to check you're own questioning rather than being fly in the ointment. But what you chose to believe is up to you, no skin off my nose either way.
 
I'd say things are as grim for WNW as for everyone else. Only PJ can save this if he has the motivation and money.
The designers and researchers can still work from home and get projects ready, the warehouse staff?  The signs for NZ recovery are good. But if there is a systemic failure and the bean counters and tax agencies are calling the shots then they are in a very difficult spot, as mentioned.
 
I hope his Museum stays open, the Vintage aviator stays flying in NZ, the DR1's squeeze through, and Weta survives. Remember that PJ's whole Middle NZ thing is huge for tourism, and employs quite a few people. Rich people avoid paying fair amounts of tax it's true, but how many started a 1/32 WW1 kit company, created Hobbition or an Air Museum?  I'm not trying to be a fan, just hoping these things continue, not go bust like my local coffee store, restaurants or workplace. I know, 1st world problem, but still...
 
Let's see what the next few weeks bring
 
 

I am happy to see WNW keeps looking for new ways to release this kit.  It is such a wonderful subject.  

Definitely, wish more manufacturers would do this but there are so many amazing schemes that WnW can go at so it makes a lot of sense. At this rate they will be wearing the Alby  moulds out!! WnW are just prolific at the moment.......who said it's not a not for profit business?
 
Regards. Andy 

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.

I had a feeling there was a Pup with rockets abroad.
 
 
No doubt there will be a Pfalz III. some time as well since some of the sprues are marked Pfalz III.a and some are marked Pfalz III/Pfalz III.a

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 UR.II's despite them looking completely different. If that is not the case, very few Fokker E.v's and Dr.1's were in fact Oberursel engined, they were in fact Le Rhone engined, which would imply that there were a hell of a lot of recovered Rhone engines that went into German aircraft.......at the factory!
 
 the WNW site for Le Rhone/UR.II engine sprue photo archive illustrates the point.
 
 
http://www.wingnutwings.com/ww/productdetail?productid=3169&cat=1

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.

there are many Le Rhone engines -
 
But these Fokker triplanes above all have a Rhone 9Ja or copy fitted. Above a Rhone 9Ja
 

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.

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 UR.II's despite them looking completely different. If that is not the case, very few Fokker E.v's and Dr.1's were in fact Oberursel engined, they were in fact Le Rhone engined, which would imply that there were a hell of a lot of recovered Rhone engines that went into German aircraft.......at the factory!
 
 the WNW site for Le Rhone/UR.II engine sprue photo archive illustrates the point.
 
 
http://www.wingnutwings.com/ww/productdetail?productid=3169&cat=1

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 UR.II's despite them looking completely different. If that is not the case, very few Fokker E.v's and Dr.1's were in fact Oberursel engined, they were in fact Le Rhone engined, which would imply that there were a hell of a lot of recovered Rhone engines that went into German aircraft.......at the factory!
 
 the WNW site for Le Rhone/UR.II engine sprue photo archive illustrates the point.
 
 
http://www.wingnutwings.com/ww/productdetail?productid=3169&cat=1