Jump to content

1/32 Fokker Dr.I from Meng


barkhorn

Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, LSP_Ron said:

Why do we care about who owns the molds?

 

It's a look behind the curtain and unravels some of the WNW mystique, and sheds some light on their production process and the practices in the business which will interest a fair number of modelers. It also suggests that some of the mold companies they employed may take up where WNW left off. 

 

Also WNW had the Lanc, HPs, starstrutter and doubtless a number of other kits in the pipeline that may also actually reach market in the same way. It's all pretty interesting and it's not every day that a billionaire's pet model co. ends up here. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, DrDave said:

It’s because 3 versions are in the same kit

shave off the wrong ones 

Wot, mould making that cleverly covers a multitude of variations,  but which requires yer actual model making skills to be applied in skimming off the ones you don't need for your particular model? Steady on there... That means praising the designers. What would we have to moan about then? It will never catch on, I tell you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, PhilB said:

Could see where this one was going very early on.

:lol:

So apparently three factories were doing the manufacture for WNW in China?

Ok, so then Meng will release further ex-WNW stuff as they have some of the molds......?

Then the "other" factory will release the rest of the WW1 WNW stuff under the name "Mong" models.

Then finally another factory will release the Lancaster under the name "Ming" models.

Meng, Ming, Mong.

There - fixed it for you.

Just off to open a new box of straws and do a bit of "clutchin'" .................

 

:lol:

Seeing as the demise of WNW turned the LSP world upside down, I suggest that the phoenix fluttering out of China be referred to as MNM, or Meng Nut Mings. 

 

I'll get my coat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Basta said:

I also doubt that you will get 3 A4 Cartograf sheets for it either, as WNW would have done, not to mention the instruction booklet. 

 

And yes that box art is rather unfortunate. 

 

can someone please explain the faux pas with the engine box art?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, nmayhew said:

 

can someone please explain the faux pas with the engine box art?

 

I suspect that the "issue" with the box art is the chunky wing "rib tapes" that look like rebars. 

Radu 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, nmayhew said:

 

can someone please explain the faux pas with the engine box art?

 

On the Fokker Dr.I, the engine turns in an opposite direction to the propeller.   So, on the box art, the engine should be a blur, too.  See boxart below.

103811-11104-pristine.jpg

Edited by Gazzas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gazzas said:

 

On the Fokker Dr.I, the engine turns in an opposite direction to the propeller.   So, on the box art, the engine should be a blur, too.  See boxart below.

 

 

It depends on the shutter speed. :D What shutter speed was that box art drawn at? :)

Radu 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Radub said:

 

It depends on the shutter speed. :D What shutter speed was that box art drawn at? :)

Radu 

 

On the old Revell 1/28 Dr.I, the prop and the spinner were made to turn at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://youtu.be/Nk9Dl6RZxmQ

 

Just to remove any doubts, the video of a Gnome rotary proves the propeller is fixed to the crankcase and spins in the same direction as the cylinders for cooling.

 

If the engine stops so does the propeller.

 

The Meng box art......is just fiction.

 

https://vintageaviationecho.com/fokker-dr1/

 

....this link shows the wing stacking pads on the leading edges quite clearly.

Mikael Carlson’s DR.1 replica is generally considered a very close likeness to the original aircraft.

Edited by Palm-tree
Addition of extra text and link to DR.1 replica
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing that really surprises me is that the pads had a 'correct' position. They were probably tacked on after the linen, and I can't see it matters within a few inches exactly where they went on the leading edge

 

Maybe some information will emerge to explain this

 

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, wunwinglow said:

Wot, mould making that cleverly covers a multitude of variations,  but which requires yer actual model making skills to be applied in skimming off the ones you don't need for your particular model? Steady on there... That means praising the designers. What would we have to moan about then? It will never catch on, I tell you.

I agree.. that's crazy.  This kit is junk.  Hopefully the aftermarket folks will come to rescue with corrected resin wings with those bumps in the correct location.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gazzas said:

 

On the Fokker Dr.I, the engine turns in an opposite direction to the propeller.   So, on the box art, the engine should be a blur, too.  See boxart below.

 

No...  the prop is rigidly fixed to the crankcase.   The only way you could have a rotary engine turn opposite to the prop would be pretty much rebuild the entire motor and add appropriate gearing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, John1 said:

No...  the prop is rigidly fixed to the crankcase.   The only way you could have a rotary engine turn opposite to the prop would be pretty much rebuild the entire motor and add appropriate gearing.  

 

This is ringing bells for me - not the Oberursel in the DR.I (or the common WWI LeRhone or Clerget engines). I have a feeling there is a rotary that worked exactly that way

 

I can't remember which one or why

 

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RLWP said:

The only thing that really surprises me is that the pads had a 'correct' position. They were probably tacked on after the linen, and I can't see it matters within a few inches exactly where they went on the leading edge

 

Maybe some information will emerge to explain this

 

Richard

German planes in WW1 were not only disassembled for initial shipment but entire jastas were periodically moved to hotspots on the front, that's how the Flying Circus got its name, the colorful planes being regularly on the move like a traveling circus. 

 

So the pads were important protection and the spacing doubtless was regularized so that several wings could be stacked vertically together on supports without damage when they were being transported. 

 

The difference in spacing is due to a later production variant, Dr1s had wing failures which grounded them and Fokker had to reinforce and seal the wings. 

Edited by Basta
Clarifed stacking
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...