Knights of the Sky (1 Viewer)

[lancer]

Just received in this afternoon's mail ACE-17(S) Albatros DIII "Blaue Maus" . . . . . a very impressive looking model and much better looking in hand than in the stock photos of it on the internet . . . . . I really like the blue color it is done in. I did not realize it was so much larger than the other JJD WWI aircraft I have; ie Fokker Dr1's and Camels . . . . .
:smile2: Mike

Nice pick-up, Mike. It is a very attractive paint job and I agree about it looking much better in person than it does via the factory photos. The blue shade is just very impressive, especially with the bit of black and white trim supplied by the tail, crosses, and fuselage stripes. The Albatros was a large fighter by WW1 standards, kind of on par with the Fokker D-7, easily outsizing such planes as the Nieuports, Spads, Camels, and tripes. A very nice looking aircraft. ^&cool -- Al

 

[ivanmoe]

Just received in this afternoon's mail ACE-17(S) Albatros DIII "Blaue Maus" . . . . . a very impressive looking model and much better looking in hand than in the stock photos of it on the internet . . . . . I really like the blue color it is done in. I did not realize it was so much larger than the other JJD WWI aircraft I have; ie Fokker Dr1's and Camels . . . . .
:smile2: Mike

Of the two JJD Albatros, Blue Maus is my favorite. I've never seen a photo of it that does the model complete justice. You've got to hold it in your hand to completely appreciate Jenkins' work.

-Moe

 

[mestell]

Prepping a Camel (ACE-10) for its next patrol . . . . . . .
:smile2: Mike

 

[ivanmoe]

Hi Mike,

There are really three distinct groups of "BGC" now, the original "chocks away" sets, a second that I'd characterize as "maintenance crew," and finally the still emerging "plane handlers" that began with the BGC-17:

Taken as a whole, the variety of figures and "tasks" affords collectors all sorts of display possibilities like that which you've employed in your pics. Very nicely done!

-Moe

BTW, my observations regarding the variety of "British Ground Crew" figures available didn't include the wounded/medical sets that are still for sale from most dealers. I guess that those could genuinely be considered to constitute yet a fourth category or grouping. One way or the other, the possibilities are pretty inspiring.

 

[mestell]

Hi Mike,

There are really three distinct groups of "BGC" now, the original "chocks away" sets, a second that I'd characterize as "maintenance crew," and finally the still emerging "plane handlers" that began with the BGC-17:

Taken as a whole, the variety of figures and "tasks" affords collectors all sorts of display possibilities like that which you've employed in your pics. Very nicely done!

-Moe

BTW, my observations regarding the variety of "British Ground Crew" figures available didn't include the wounded/medical sets that are still for sale from most dealers. I guess that those could genuinely be considered to constitute yet a fourth category or grouping. One way or the other, the possibilities are pretty inspiring.

Thanks Moe. I haven't decided on whether I am going to collect the "Chocks Away" sets, but am definately collecting the "Plane Handlers" and some of the wounded and medical sets to go along with the Ford Model-T ambulance I now have. I do have BGC-17 "Mechanic with Tail/Skid Dolly" and currently have him pulling a Nieuport back to its hanger . . . . . Its a little bit more than he can handle by himself and he is in sore need of some help :wink2: . . . . I don't think he will have to worry long for some assistance.
:smile2: Mike

 

[ivanmoe]

I know that "product suggestion" posts are anathema to some of our readers, but please indulge me for a moment.

I found an interesting pic that I believe might inspire a new BGC set from Jenkins:

While I suspect that sculpting some figs in poses like this might be problematic, the engine and wooden base would still make a great focus of attention for some "mechanics." BTW, anyone know what model of engine that is? ^&confuse

-Moe

 

[lancer]

I know that "product suggestion" posts are anathema to some of our readers, but please indulge me for a moment.

I found an interesting pic that I believe might inspire a new BGC set from Jenkins:

While I suspect that sculpting some figs in poses like this might be problematic, the engine and wooden base would still make a great focus of attention for some "mechanics." BTW, anyone know what model of engine that is? ^&confuse

-Moe

Moe, I would assume as the mechanics are working around Camels that the rotary they are wrestling with is the standard 130 hp Clerget 9 cylinder. -- Al

 

[ivanmoe]

Moe, I would assume as the mechanics are working around Camels that the rotary they are wrestling with is the standard 130 hp Clerget 9 cylinder. -- Al

Hi Al,

That's certainly very plausible, but did you notice that there's but a single push-rod and it's mounted on the back of the cylinder? The Clerget 9 (and similar but improved Bentley BR1) had two push-rods that were located in the front of the cylinder. Below we see the former, beneath the Clerget, the latter:

I'd note that the "push-rods" on Jenkins' Camel are molded into the front of the "engine," so John's on board with you, Al.

It would seem that we're left with two possibilities if the engine in the pic actually belongs to a F1 Camel.

It could be a Gnome 9N:

We pared the push-rods down to one per cylinder. This is a good thing. However, the push-rod is on the front of the cylinder, rather than the back!


Below, we see two pics of yet a fourth rotary, the Le Rhone 9J:

IMO, this is the best match. The push-rods run down the back of the cylinders on this one. The Le Rhone has another attribute that might prove of interest to KotS collectors. The 110hp version of the engine was license-built in Germany during the war and powered the Fokker Dr1, Al's beloved triplane. The obvious benefit of this is that such a set would be a nice match for both German and Allied displays. If anyone is interested, let Jenkins know. I'm sure that John would be willing to entertain the idea.

-Moe

 

[lancer]

Hi Al,

That's certainly very plausible, but did you notice that there's but a single push-rod and it's mounted on the back of the cylinder? The Clerget 9 (and similar but improved Bentley BR1) had two push-rods that were located in the front of the cylinder. Below we see the former, beneath the Clerget, the latter:

I'd note that the "push-rods" on Jenkins' Camel are molded into the front of the "engine," so John's on board with you, Al.

It would seem that we're left with two possibilities if the engine in the pic actually belongs to a F1 Camel.

It could be a Gnome 9N:

We pared the push-rods down to one per cylinder. This is a good thing. However, the push-rod is on the front of the cylinder, rather than the back!


Below, we see two pics of yet a fourth rotary, the Le Rhone 9J:

IMO, this is the best match. The push-rods run down the back of the cylinders on this one. The Le Rhone has another attribute that might prove of interest to KotS collectors. The 110hp version of the engine was license-built in Germany during the war and powered the Fokker Dr1, Al's beloved triplane. The obvious benefit of this is that such a set would be a nice match for both German and Allied displays. If anyone is interested, let Jenkins know. I'm sure that John would be willing to entertain the idea.

-Moe

Moe, nice bit of observation and investigation. I know the Gnome was used but still would have guessed the Clerget. I simply don't know a whole lot about the different engines and details like the push-rod positions, etc. I think the idea for the engines being pulled out for work/replacement is a good one with lots of related possibilities. Would be great to see Mg maintenance being done, being torn down, cleaned, ammo belts layed out, etc. -- Al

 

[mestell]

Oops! Forgot that moving photos from one album to another in Photobucket interrupts any previous link :redface2:
:smile2: Mike

Prepping a Camel (ACE-10) for its next patrol . . . . . . .
:smile2: Mike

 

[trooper]

I know that "product suggestion" posts are anathema to some of our readers, but please indulge me for a moment.

I found an interesting pic that I believe might inspire a new BGC set from Jenkins:

While I suspect that sculpting some figs in poses like this might be problematic, the engine and wooden base would still make a great focus of attention for some "mechanics." BTW, anyone know what model of engine that is? ^&confuse

-Moe

I realise that the request is for John Jenkins but it might be of interest that a similar group was made by Yeomanry miniatures back in 2012. Trooper

 

[ivanmoe]

I realise that the request is for John Jenkins but it might be of interest that a similar group was made by Yeomanry miniatures back in 2012. Trooper

Hi Trooper,

It's hard to look at the Yeomanry pic and not draw the conclusion that it was inspired by the photograph that I've focused on. The cradle is missing, but there are plenty of obvious similarities. The JPG that I posted is a scan, BTW. I've seen the pic in a book before, but I can't remember where. I almost want to say it was in some sort of huge, American Heritage-style volume about WWI. If anyone knows where a cleaner copy can be had, please let me know, so that I can pass it on. Trooper, I'll pass your pic on to John also. And thank you.

-Moe

 

[ivanmoe]

More grist for JJ's mill. Found a pic of what looks like a Thornycroft outside of an RFC fitter's hangar. This must be the "machine-shop on wheels" variant:

Gotta love that beast of a vehicle, but it would cost a fortune to manufacture!

-Moe

 

[Jack]

This post is out of place in this section but the audience is right. I was having a look at a few clips of Matchbox cars being made in the 50s and 60s and found it really fascinating. I did a bit of a search on ebay looking at the possibility of collecting double decker buses from Matchbox and Corgi, or WW1 biplanes or interwar aviation ... nothing serious, just a bit of fun on the side for another interest. The buses seemed reasonable but the aircraft did not seem to offer a cheap interest as such. Am I right in saying that collecting diecast aircraft is not likely to be cheap?

 

[lancer]

This post is out of place in this section but the audience is right. I was having a look at a few clips of Matchbox cars being made in the 50s and 60s and found it really fascinating. I did a bit of a search on ebay looking at the possibility of collecting double decker buses from Matchbox and Corgi, or WW1 biplanes or interwar aviation ... nothing serious, just a bit of fun on the side for another interest. The buses seemed reasonable but the aircraft did not seem to offer a cheap interest as such. Am I right in saying that collecting diecast aircraft is not likely to be cheap?

Jack, collecting die-cast aircraft can be expensive but the aircraft (depending on maker) are gorgeous. Detail, the colors, the heft, are all outstanding. I have several 1/48 Hobbycraft inter-war biplanes that are of the 'yellow wing' series and I love them. They cost in the neighborhood of $65 or so. The 1/32 aircraft are much more expensive but are just as nice as the smaller aircraft, although the choices are much smaller in number. The widest selections will be 1/72 and 1/48. -- Al

 

[Jack]

Jack, collecting die-cast aircraft can be expensive but the aircraft (depending on maker) are gorgeous. Detail, the colors, the heft, are all outstanding. I have several 1/48 Hobbycraft inter-war biplanes that are of the 'yellow wing' series and I love them. They cost in the neighborhood of $65 or so. The 1/32 aircraft are much more expensive but are just as nice as the smaller aircraft, although the choices are much smaller in number. The widest selections will be 1/72 and 1/48. -- Al

Al

Yes ... they are quite stunning. I have had a quick look at the local hobby shop and they are impressive. There is just so much to buy. I might look at the 1/72 nd again. I would only make it a small collection but I am tempted by the interway stuff.

Jack

 

[ivanmoe]

Al

I would only make it a small collection but I am tempted by the interway stuff.

Hi Jack,

This is a personal favorite of mine:

It was released last year around the holidays, and ought to still be available retail.

Here's another nice one that's still to be had retail:

The images of both models above are magnified, BTW.

If it sounds like I'm pushing "retail," its because I don't like buying diecast model airplanes on ****. They'd run you about $80, I believe. The best experience that I've had with buying models like this in an auction is the **** store of KH Norton (UK). There's not a great demand for "Golden Age" models over there, and they tend to sell at a good discount. I don't know if this would be an option for you, as shipping to Australia can be pretty pricey.

Finally, Al mentioned 1/32 models. They are indeed expensive, and...well...large. You're looking at a whole lot of "foot-print" in terms of display space. In terms of quality and detail, they are a mixed bag. My rule of thumb is pretty direct. The model has to offer detail that I don't see in a smaller scale. If it's just a big hunk of zinc, that's not notably better in some respect than what I can find in 48 or 72 (or smaller), forget it. Speaking of "big hunks of zinc," this just arrived yesterday, along with HM's Vraciu version:

At the risk of sounding vulgar, I suspect that something like the model above, with a stand, would cost about three-hundred Australian dollars. {eek3} Just trying to be frank.


-Moe

 

[lancer]

Hi Jack,

This is a personal favorite of mine:

It was released last year around the holidays, and ought to still be available retail.

Here's another nice one that's still to be had retail:

The images of both models above are magnified, BTW.

If it sounds like I'm pushing "retail," its because I don't like buying diecast model airplanes on ****. They'd run you about $80, I believe. The best experience that I've had with buying models like this in an auction is the **** store of KH Norton (UK). There's not a great demand for "Golden Age" models over there, and they tend to sell at a good discount. I don't know if this would be an option for you, as shipping to Australia can be pretty pricey.

Finally, Al mentioned 1/32 models. They are indeed expensive, and...well...large. You're looking at a whole lot of "foot-print" in terms of display space. In terms of quality and detail, they are a mixed bag. My rule of thumb is pretty direct. The model has to offer detail that I don't see in a smaller scale. If it's just a big hunk of zinc, that's not notably better in some respect than what I can find in 48 or 72 (or smaller), forget it. Speaking of "big hunks of zinc," this just arrived yesterday, along with HM's Vraciu version:

At the risk of sounding vulgar, I suspect that something like the model above, with a stand, would cost about three-hundred Australian dollars. {eek3} Just trying to be frank.


-Moe

Love them yellow wings, especially US Navy aviation yellow wings. I think the F4B's were the best looking biplanes ever built, although I like the Curtiss Hawks quite a bit, too.:wink2: I even like the Grumman Flying Barrel. They're all beautiful to a biplane lover.^&grin -- Al

 

[Jack]

Hi Jack,

This is a personal favorite of mine:

It was released last year around the holidays, and ought to still be available retail.

Here's another nice one that's still to be had retail:

The images of both models above are magnified, BTW.

If it sounds like I'm pushing "retail," its because I don't like buying diecast model airplanes on ****. They'd run you about $80, I believe. The best experience that I've had with buying models like this in an auction is the **** store of KH Norton (UK). There's not a great demand for "Golden Age" models over there, and they tend to sell at a good discount. I don't know if this would be an option for you, as shipping to Australia can be pretty pricey.

Finally, Al mentioned 1/32 models. They are indeed expensive, and...well...large. You're looking at a whole lot of "foot-print" in terms of display space. In terms of quality and detail, they are a mixed bag. My rule of thumb is pretty direct. The model has to offer detail that I don't see in a smaller scale. If it's just a big hunk of zinc, that's not notably better in some respect than what I can find in 48 or 72 (or smaller), forget it. Speaking of "big hunks of zinc," this just arrived yesterday, along with HM's Vraciu version:

At the risk of sounding vulgar, I suspect that something like the model above, with a stand, would cost about three-hundred Australian dollars. {eek3} Just trying to be frank.


-Moe

Moe

Thanks for the information. 300 dollars - that's not vulgar ... that's almost pornographic! Some great looking aircraft though. I will have a look at the UK connection. I have contacts in the UK - no postage costs for Jack!!

Jack

 

[Jack]

Hi Jack,

This is a personal favorite of mine:


If it sounds like I'm pushing "retail," its because I don't like buying diecast model airplanes on ****. They'd run you about $80, I believe. The best experience that I've had with buying models like this in an auction is the **** store of KH Norton (UK). There's not a great demand for "Golden Age" models over there, and they tend to sell at a good discount. I don't know if this would be an option for you, as shipping to Australia can be pretty pricey.

Finally, Al mentioned 1/32 models. They are indeed expensive, and...well...large. You're looking at a whole lot of "foot-print" in terms of display space. In terms of quality and detail, they are a mixed bag. My rule of thumb is pretty direct. The model has to offer detail that I don't see in a smaller scale. If it's just a big hunk of zinc, that's not notably better in some respect than what I can find in 48 or 72 (or smaller), forget it. Speaking of "big hunks of zinc," this just arrived yesterday, along with HM's Vraciu version:


At the risk of sounding vulgar, I suspect that something like the model above, with a stand, would cost about three-hundred Australian dollars. {eek3} Just trying to be frank.


-Moe

Moe

Some nice 1/48th scale stuff on that site.

Jack