Heco ID (1 Viewer)

[tdubel]

I missed finding this in the Heco Thread, I know its there, but i gave up. Louis indicated it is either a DH5 or DH9. Anyhow, this is one from the Basement that will be leaving the collection - it is a Heco made for Under Two Flags in the original box, I want to make sure i have the right id before listing it for sale. All help appreciated!

Tom

 

[lancer]

Tom, I can tell you that the plane is NOT a DH-5. The DH-5 is a single-seat fighter with a very characteristic backwards stagger to the wings. I do not know for sure what it is as it looks very much like a single-seat SE-5 that has had an extra cockpit added. The nose shape, the fuselage shape, the wing shape, the strut placement and arrangement, tailskid, machine gun on the top wing, even the exhaust pipe arrangement, all scream SE-5, yet there are two cockpits. As a further bit of confusion, it has very few characteristics of a DH-9 beyond the two-seats and a generally boxy shape. Most tellingly, there should be two sets of inter-wing struts on each side, not one as the model has. The DH-9 is a large plane with a big wing span that required two sets of struts. Heco tends to take liberty with details, but this one has me stumped in terms of an absolute ID. It looks to me like Heco took an SE-5, and for whatever reason, threw in an extra seat. Maybe Louis can help. It's got me. Sorry to muddle things further. -- Al

 

[lancer]

Tom, I can tell you that the plane is NOT a DH-5. The DH-5 is a single-seat fighter with a very characteristic backwards stagger to the wings. I do not know for sure what it is as it looks very much like a single-seat SE-5 that has had an extra cockpit added. The nose shape, the fuselage shape, the wing shape, the strut placement and arrangement, tailskid, machine gun on the top wing, even the exhaust pipe arrangement, all scream SE-5, yet there are two cockpits. As a further bit of confusion, it has very few characteristics of a DH-9 beyond the two-seats and a generally boxy shape. Most tellingly, there should be two sets of inter-wing struts on each side, not one as the model has. The DH-9 is a large plane with a big wing span that required two sets of struts. Heco tends to take liberty with details, but this one has me stumped in terms of an absolute ID. It looks to me like Heco took an SE-5, and for whatever reason, threw in an extra seat. Maybe Louis can help. It's got me. Sorry to muddle things further. -- Al

Upon further investigation, there were a VERY SMALL number of SE-5's converted to 2-seaters for training purposes. They were never armed or used in combat and I'm unsure if any of the 2-seat conversions were even wartime. Perhaps Heco has just used their artistic expression by putting machine guns on their example. -- Al

 

[Louis Badolato]

Upon further investigation, there were a VERY SMALL number of SE-5's converted to 2-seaters for training purposes. They were never armed or used in combat and I'm unsure if any of the 2-seat conversions were even wartime. Perhaps Heco has just used their artistic expression by putting machine guns on their example. -- Al

I can't tell you the authenticity behind Heco's calling it this, but as I thought, the plane in question is listed in the Heco Tinplate Models catalogue as a DH5 biplane (the photograph from Heco is definitely the same plane as the one Tom has). Take it for what it's worth, but that is what Heco calls this model.

 

[lancer]

I can't tell you the authenticity behind Heco's calling it this, but as I thought, the plane in question is listed in the Heco Tinplate Models catalogue as a DH5 biplane (the photograph from Heco is definitely the same plane as the one Tom has). Take it for what it's worth, but that is what Heco calls this model.

That is interesting and I would like to know how Heco came to this label. The DH-5 is a SINGLE seat fighter aircraft. It has a rotary engine, unlike the Heco version, which is obviously an inline engine, and this resulted in a round profile to the forward fuselage. The most important ID factor, besides being a single-seater, is the DH-5 had a highly unusual BACKWARD stagger to the wings, ie., the top wing sits further back than the bottom wing. In fact, the DH-5 was designed with this backwards stagger to allow the pilot a clear view forwards in all directions. The top wing was actually behind the pilot's seat. I can't think of another WW1 aircraft with this backwards stagger feature, except, perhaps, the Sopwith Dolphin which had a very slight back-stagger. The DH-5 was also armed with a single, forward firing synchronized Vickers gun. Hard to imagine Heco taking this kind of artistic license since most of their creations are close to accurate. Perhaps it was a 'factory' labeling error on the box that was never corrected. Whatever Heco had in mind, the results certainly are not a DH-5. Once again, I apologize for my rivet counting, as I do not mean to insult the maker. I admire Heco as artwork of a high order, but they missed on this one, ID wise. -- Al

 

[Louis Badolato]

That is interesting and I would like to know how Heco came to this label. The DH-5 is a SINGLE seat fighter aircraft. It has a rotary engine, unlike the Heco version, which is obviously an inline engine, and this resulted in a round profile to the forward fuselage. The most important ID factor, besides being a single-seater, is the DH-5 had a highly unusual BACKWARD stagger to the wings, ie., the top wing sits further back than the bottom wing. In fact, the DH-5 was designed with this backwards stagger to allow the pilot a clear view forwards in all directions. The top wing was actually behind the pilot's seat. I can't think of another WW1 aircraft with this backwards stagger feature, except, perhaps, the Sopwith Dolphin which had a very slight back-stagger. The DH-5 was also armed with a single, forward firing synchronized Vickers gun. Hard to imagine Heco taking this kind of artistic license since most of their creations are close to accurate. Perhaps it was a 'factory' labeling error on the box that was never corrected. Whatever Heco had in mind, the results certainly are not a DH-5. Once again, I apologize for my rivet counting, as I do not mean to insult the maker. I admire Heco as artwork of a high order, but they missed on this one, ID wise. -- Al

I checked a second Heco catalogue, and believe that there was a numbering error in the first catalogue. The catalogue I was referencing earlier had a number next to the photo which corresponded with the DH-5. However, in the second catalogue the number next to the photo corresponded with a SE7. Based on your description of the DH-5, I think the first catalogue must have had a typo. Sorry Al!

 

[lancer]

I checked a second Heco catalogue, and believe that there was a numbering error in the first catalogue. The catalogue I was referencing earlier had a number next to the photo which corresponded with the DH-5. However, in the second catalogue the number next to the photo corresponded with a SE7. Based on your description of the DH-5, I think the first catalogue must have had a typo. Sorry Al!

Thanks for the response, Louis. Glad to know that neither I nor Heco are losing our grip on reality.:wink2:^&grin -- Al