Knights of the Sky (3 Viewers)

[ivanmoe]

I’ve been rather bad recently with taking pictures and posting them here. Have a plan to get up to date in the next week or two.

Here are the purchases from June;

View attachment 234645

View attachment 234646

View attachment 234647

Appreciate the pics, Vicknor. They give me a much better idea of what the model looks like. The figures strike me as being more sophisticated than most earlier GGC sets, particularly in the castings themselves and the paint work.

-Moe

 

[ivanmoe]

The aircraft is outstanding. Love the mechanics, as well. John really has the whole hustle and bustle of an airfield down to a fine art with all the different figures and equipment. Excellent gets. -- Al

Al, did the windows serve any function other than sightseeing? I’d think that they must have been fairly heavy and designers usually don’t add weight to a plane without some degree of benefit.

-Moe

 

[lancer]

Al, did the windows serve any function other than sightseeing? I’d think that they must have been fairly heavy and designers usually don’t add weight to a plane without some degree of benefit.

-Moe

Moe, the windows were attempts to improve sightlines for both the pilot and observer because the unusual wing arrangement created rather large blindspots, especially for the pilot down and forward. I have no knowledge on what the windows were made of, be it glass (seems unlikely) or some sort of clear material. -- Al

 

[ivanmoe]

Moe, the windows were attempts to improve sightlines for both the pilot and observer because the unusual wing arrangement created rather large blindspots, especially for the pilot down and forward. I have no knowledge on what the windows were made of, be it glass (seems unlikely) or some sort of clear material. -- Al

You know, Al, configurations like that rarely work. In this case, it really appears as though the pilot would have to lean over and down in the cockpit to get anything like a useful view. That’s probably fine...unless he was being shot at!

Several USN types had windows on the underside of the fuselage in order to provide better visibility through the cockpit floor, among them early models of the Wildcat:



In practice, such a port is somewhat dangerous in that anything more than a quick glance downward takes the eyes of the pilot off of what’s in front of, or behind, him! Early Corsairs, the “birdcage” variety, had a single such window that provided visibility downward between the pilot’s legs. The windows were removed from both types in later production. Pilots saw the openings for what they were, largely useless and ineffective. However, this did give me a chance to post a pic of Butch O’Hares F4F!:wink2:

-Moe

 

[lancer]

You know, Al, configurations like that rarely work. In this case, it really appears as though the pilot would have to lean over and down in the cockpit to get anything like a useful view. That’s probably fine...unless he was being shot at!

Several USN types had windows on the underside of the fuselage in order to provide better visibility through the cockpit floor, among them early models of the Wildcat:

View attachment 234665

In practice, such a port is somewhat dangerous in that anything more than a quick glance downward takes the eyes of the pilot off of what’s in front of, or behind, him! Early Corsairs, the “birdcage” variety, had a single such window that provided visibility downward between the pilot’s legs. The windows were removed from both types in later production. Pilots saw the openings for what they were, largely useless and ineffective. However, this did give me a chance to post a pic of Butch O’Hares F4F!:wink2:

-Moe

I believe the F2A also had a rather large window in the belly of the fuselage. An interesting attempt at improving the view, but, as you said, you have to take your eyes away from the main quadrant, sort of like distracted driving. -- Al

 

[Vicknor]

Appreciate the pics, Vicknor. They give me a much better idea of what the model looks like. The figures strike me as being more sophisticated than most earlier GGC sets, particularly in the castings themselves and the paint work.

-Moe

Hi Moe,

Although the Roland is simpler in design than some other WW1 JJD planes, its size and impact make it a stunner. Out of my whole TS collection, my German ground crew pieces are my favourites. They just add so much to a picture and you are certainly right about the quality improving.

 

[ivanmoe]

Found a pic of a Sunday sermon on the Western Front:

Doubt that it will ever be memorialized in pewter, but what a great subject!

-Moe

 

[lancer]

Found a pic of a Sunday sermon on the Western Front:

Doubt that it will ever be memorialized in pewter, but what a great subject!

-Moe

Greta picture, but look how much of the Padre is exposed while standing in that front cockpit. The gunners who went up in these things, standing and being exposed to weather and enemy fire, doing their job while the pilot throws the aircraft all over the sky, must have been a really different breed of man. How they did it, I'll never understand. Here's to the PBO's.:salute:: -- Al

 

[lancer]

After reading the Q&A regarding the possibility of WW1 bomber aircraft from JJD, and John putting the kibosh on them for reasons of size involving cost and shipping problems, I turned to thinking about possible further 2-seaters John might consider, using the size of the recent Roland C.II as a guide. The results were not particularly encouraging. Generally, the Allied recon 2-seaters tended to be larger than the German ones, especially later war German ground attack type aircraft. In the same general size parameters, the Hannover CL.III and the Halberstadt CL.II were both aircraft that might be doable by John without much increase in overall dimensions. Both types were very common and efficient aircraft.
Moe mentioned the Bristol F2b as an aircraft he would love to see, but thought too big. It might actually be doable, as it is not hugely larger than any of the German types mentioned, but complexity/delicacy of the type would still be a concern. Other Allied types such as the Salmson 2, RE-8, DH-4 and 9, or even a BE-2 series aircraft, all are larger than the German types I mentioned, with the DH-4 and 9 being especially so. A Spad XI might fall into the doable catagory.
I think 2-seaters (and smallish ones at that) are as large an aircraft as John deems practical in terms of complexity and especially in terms of shipping safely and cheaply enough to be sustainable. This is all just my opinion and I would love for a solution to be found in terms of larger aircraft, as the same problems will also apply to any WW2 aircraft John considers, but getting a larger model to the buyer intact and at an affordable shipping cost is a huge problem to overcome. -- Al

 

[Combat]

After reading the Q&A regarding the possibility of WW1 bomber aircraft from JJD, and John putting the kibosh on them for reasons of size involving cost and shipping problems, I turned to thinking about possible further 2-seaters John might consider, using the size of the recent Roland C.II as a guide. The results were not particularly encouraging. Generally, the Allied recon 2-seaters tended to be larger than the German ones, especially later war German ground attack type aircraft. In the same general size parameters, the Hannover CL.III and the Halberstadt CL.II were both aircraft that might be doable by John without much increase in overall dimensions. Both types were very common and efficient aircraft.
Moe mentioned the Bristol F2b as an aircraft he would love to see, but thought too big. It might actually be doable, as it is not hugely larger than any of the German types mentioned, but complexity/delicacy of the type would still be a concern. Other Allied types such as the Salmson 2, RE-8, DH-4 and 9, or even a BE-2 series aircraft, all are larger than the German types I mentioned, with the DH-4 and 9 being especially so. A Spad XI might fall into the doable catagory.
I think 2-seaters (and smallish ones at that) are as large an aircraft as John deems practical in terms of complexity and especially in terms of shipping safely and cheaply enough to be sustainable. This is all just my opinion and I would love for a solution to be found in terms of larger aircraft, as the same problems will also apply to any WW2 aircraft John considers, but getting a larger model to the buyer intact and at an affordable shipping cost is a huge problem to overcome. -- Al

I wonder if John might reconsider based on a type of subscription system where he gets a minimum number of preorders at the specified cost? Like, for example, 100 preorders for a $500 Gotha (or whatever). If there was not enough interest, then it wouldn't get done. I'm not sure the size of the item is much a concern other than shipping cost since they ship TVs and many other items now via Amazon without damage.

 

[lancer]

I wonder if John might reconsider based on a type of subscription system where he gets a minimum number of preorders at the specified cost? Like, for example, 100 preorders for a $500 Gotha (or whatever). If there was not enough interest, then it wouldn't get done. I'm not sure the size of the item is much a concern other than shipping cost since they ship TVs and many other items now via Amazon without damage.

John did specifically say that a WW1 bomber would probably never get made by him because it would be way too big to ship economically. Obviously, the key being shipping and cost, not possible damage. Too bad as I would have loved to see John tackle the Gotha G.V in his unique style...it would have been huge.^&cool -- Al

 

[Terp152]

After reading the Q&A regarding the possibility of WW1 bomber aircraft from JJD, and John putting the kibosh on them for reasons of size involving cost and shipping problems, I turned to thinking about possible further 2-seaters John might consider, using the size of the recent Roland C.II as a guide. The results were not particularly encouraging. Generally, the Allied recon 2-seaters tended to be larger than the German ones, especially later war German ground attack type aircraft. In the same general size parameters, the Hannover CL.III and the Halberstadt CL.II were both aircraft that might be doable by John without much increase in overall dimensions. Both types were very common and efficient aircraft.
Moe mentioned the Bristol F2b as an aircraft he would love to see, but thought too big. It might actually be doable, as it is not hugely larger than any of the German types mentioned, but complexity/delicacy of the type would still be a concern. Other Allied types such as the Salmson 2, RE-8, DH-4 and 9, or even a BE-2 series aircraft, all are larger than the German types I mentioned, with the DH-4 and 9 being especially so. A Spad XI might fall into the doable catagory.
I think 2-seaters (and smallish ones at that) are as large an aircraft as John deems practical in terms of complexity and especially in terms of shipping safely and cheaply enough to be sustainable. This is all just my opinion and I would love for a solution to be found in terms of larger aircraft, as the same problems will also apply to any WW2 aircraft John considers, but getting a larger model to the buyer intact and at an affordable shipping cost is a huge problem to overcome. -- Al

The FE2b might be doable for John as TGM released a wooden version. The 47'9" wingspan is a large model in 1:32. Would love to see more 2 seaters as long as it doesn't delay future releases of the outstanding WWII USN models. ^&grin Chris

 

[lancer]

Wanted to bring up the possibility of JJD maybe considering a parasol type design for production. Got one from the French camp and the German camp. From the French, the Morane-Saulnier Type L, an early war aircraft (1915) that the French used as their first fighter aircraft. While frail in appearance, it was actually strong and capable of doing it's duty as a fighter (in terms of a very early war fighter). Such future French aces as Navaare, Garros, Nungesser, and Guynemer all got their start as fighter pilots in this aircraft. It also was in this plane that Reginald Warneford of the RNAS brought down a Zeppelin on 6/7/15, thus being awarded the VC for his action. It would be a neat aircraft to do and if anyone could pull off the construction of this delicate model, it would be John.
The German parasol I would like to see would be the famous Fokker EV/DVIII. This is a late war aircraft that wasn't at the front long enough to have a great impact but it was the plane that scored the last German air-to-air victory of the war. The initial production aircraft, the EV, reached the front in July, 1918, examples going to Jasta's 6, 1, 19, 24, and 36. After a series of accidents in which the wing collapsed, the type was grounded until the problem could be identified and fixed. The plane re-emerged as the D-VIII and several example were distributed to the front, including some to Jasta 11, on October 24, 1918. In all, some 381 were produced although only about 85 made it to the front. The plane of Blue Max holder, Theo Osterkamp, 32 victory ace of Marine Feld Jagdstaffel 2, would make an excellent choice for reproduction with it's black and yellow stripped fuselage and lozenge camo wing.
-- Al

 

[ivanmoe]

I posted this image to another sub-rorum here at TF this morning:

Seeing as how this thread has been the informal "suggestion box" for KotS, I thought that i'd post it here as well. Don't know if Jenkins would be interested, but the above would make for a heck of TS-scene. Never underestimate the power of the Richthofen cult!

-Moe

 

[lancer]

I posted this image to another sub-rorum here at TF this morning:

Seeing as how this thread has been the informal "suggestion box" for KotS, I thought that i'd post it here as well. Don't know if Jenkins would be interested, but the above would make for a heck of TS-scene. Never underestimate the power of the Richthofen cult!

-Moe

It would make a fantastic TS dio. Have to admit, I'm a member of that 'cult'.:wink2:^&grin -- Al

 

[lancer]

Anyone besides me got an interest in seeing John model the Pfalz D-III or even the Pfalz D-XII? I have always liked the Pfalz D-III better than the various Albatros versions, thinking it a sleeker, better looking aircraft. It was certainly a sturdier plane than the Albatros but was thought by the pilots to be inferior to the Albatros, both in speed and handling. Werner Voss briefly flew a Pfalz D-III (#1370/17) upon his assignment to Jasta 10 in July, 1917. It was finished in the standard Pfalz factory finish of silver colored dope, with the Jasta 10 ID of a chrome yellow nose. His aircraft may also have had a yellow tail. -- Al

 

[ivanmoe]

Anyone besides me got an interest in seeing John model the Pfalz D-III or even the Pfalz D-XII? I have always liked the Pfalz D-III better than the various Albatros versions, thinking it a sleeker, better looking aircraft. It was certainly a sturdier plane than the Albatros but was thought by the pilots to be inferior to the Albatros, both in speed and handling. Werner Voss briefly flew a Pfalz D-III (#1370/17) upon his assignment to Jasta 10 in July, 1917. It was finished in the standard Pfalz factory finish of silver colored dope, with the Jasta 10 ID of a chrome yellow nose. His aircraft may also have had a yellow tail. -- Al

Not a bad looking plane:

The Pfalz first entered my consciousness when Bruno Stachel bad-mouthed it in a conversation with MvR in The Blue Max. Certainly wouldn't mind having one for the collection, particularly as there are some fairly interesting paint-schemes for it.

-Moe

 

[lancer]

Not a bad looking plane:

The Pfalz first entered my consciousness when Bruno Stachel bad-mouthed it in a conversation with MvR in The Blue Max. Certainly wouldn't mind having one for the collection, particularly as there are some fairly interesting paint-schemes for it.

-Moe

Kind of like the looks of that thick-armed transitional cross. About 3/4 of the Pfalz D-III's that were built were the D-IIIa designation. The main difference was a slightly more powerful engine in the D-IIIa and the location of the MG's which were buried in the fuselage of the initial D-III's (and thus impossible to clear in the event of a jam) but were moved to the traditional top of the fuselage in front of the pilot in the D-IIIa models. The Pfalz D-III's and IIIa's were favored for observation balloon attacks (balloon busting, as it were) because of the inherent strength in the design. With its strong plywood fuselage and double spar lower wings (compared to the single-spar lower, and thus weaker, wing of the Albatro V-strutters), the Pfalz could be dived without fear of wing failure and could take a lot of punishment, a given hazard in balloon busting. As outclassed as the Pfalz had become late in the war, being replaced by the Fokker D-7's and Pfalz D-XII's, there were still about 100 at the front by November, 1918, a tribute to it's construction and reliability. -- Al

 

[Vicknor]

Anyone besides me got an interest in seeing John model the Pfalz D-III or even the Pfalz D-XII? I have always liked the Pfalz D-III better than the various Albatros versions, thinking it a sleeker, better looking aircraft. It was certainly a sturdier plane than the Albatros but was thought by the pilots to be inferior to the Albatros, both in speed and handling. Werner Voss briefly flew a Pfalz D-III (#1370/17) upon his assignment to Jasta 10 in July, 1917. It was finished in the standard Pfalz factory finish of silver colored dope, with the Jasta 10 ID of a chrome yellow nose. His aircraft may also have had a yellow tail. -- Al

I’ll have one in every colour

 

[lancer]

OK, John. Enough of this silliness. Where is Werner Voss' triplane? And you may as well do his Albatros and Pfalz, too. I will clear space on my very crowded shelves for them. Just let me know when. Good thing I don't ask for much.:wink2:^&grin -- Al