New JJD WW1 Aircraft (1 Viewer)

[lancer]

From pictures posted from the London show. it appears that JJD has 2 more new aircraft in preparation. One is Billy Bishop's Nieuport 17 in silver, marked C-5. The other is Lothar von Richthofen's Fok. Triplane with it's yellow ID colors. Also some unpainted German ground crew are evident. These look terrific. Thanks to the picture posters. -- Al

 

[Gazza]

They looked really impressive - the level of detail is amazing.

Pictures attached - enjoy

Cheers

Gazza

 

[lancer]

They looked really impressive - the level of detail is amazing.

Pictures attached - enjoy

Cheers

Gazza

Many, many thanks, Gazza. Great shots of wonderful models. Thanks for the time and effort. -- Al

 

[amhuff1]

Some great looking planes there! Can't wait to see them painted with the ground crews.

 

[Hatman]

I hate to be a nit-picker but this new DR 1 (Lothar von Richthofen) has the same aircraft identification markings on the side of the fuselage; as the Red Baron's plane; shouldn't they be different?

 

[maddadicus]

I hate to be a nit-picky but this new DR 1 (Lothar von Richthofen) has the same aircraft identification markings on the side of the fuselage; as the Red Baron's plane; shouldn't they be different?

I am not absolute on this, but a German Flying Circus was called just that, same unit, varied aircraft colors, looked like a circus...Michael

 

[wayne556517]

These planes are getting harder and harder to say no to.............

 

[lancer]

I hate to be a nit-picker but this new DR 1 (Lothar von Richthofen) has the same aircraft identification markings on the side of the fuselage; as the Red Baron's plane; shouldn't they be different?

Good catch, Hatman. It is the same #425/17 as Manfred's all red tripe. This is definitely incorrect for Lothar's aircraft which should be #454/17. In fact, the field applied paint, like the yellow on this craft, often obscured the serial numbers altogether. Manfred's red tripe was factory painted red and that is why his #425/17 is properly readable over the red paint. I assume this is a show paint job and that JJD will correct such a basic error on production models. -- Al

 

[lancer]

Now I have a nitpick about Bishop's Nieuport. The vertical ribs that are showing on the fuselage shouldn't be. They are interior ribs that wouldn't show in 3D on the exterior, while the plane is at rest, engine not running. Now with the engine running, a suction effect was in play on the fuselage fabric that allowed the ribs to be visible and subsequent wear, dirt, oil, etc. might highlight the rib position. These shadow outlines could be represented without the 3D effect that is on the model. This is just rivet counting, I realize, and it certainly won't stop me from buying the model but I would like to see it corrected. It is a beautiful looking bird. -- Al

 

[Go for Broke]

I can afford only one range, which is WWII. I don't collect WWII airplanes, but these WWI JJD Bi & triplanes are beautiful. Very tempting.

 

[lancer]

Now I have a nitpick about Bishop's Nieuport. The vertical ribs that are showing on the fuselage shouldn't be. They are interior ribs that wouldn't show in 3D on the exterior, while the plane is at rest, engine not running. Now with the engine running, a suction effect was in play on the fuselage fabric that allowed the ribs to be visible and subsequent wear, dirt, oil, etc. might highlight the rib position. These shadow outlines could be represented without the 3D effect that is on the model. This is just rivet counting, I realize, and it certainly won't stop me from buying the model but I would like to see it corrected. It is a beautiful looking bird. -- Al

More info on Bishop's Nieuport 17 that JJD is doing. Bishop flew this plane #B1566 while with 60 Squadron, in 1917. From April 20 to July 20 he claimed 29 victories in this aircraft (of his 72 total victories). He then changed over to SE-5's to finish his career. During the April to July victory string, 22 of the 29 claims were for Albatros D-3's, the best German fighter aircraft of that period. It was also during this period, on June 2, that he conducted the raid on the German airfield that he would be awarded the Victoria Cross for. JJD has picked a historic and famous aircraft to produce. -- Al

 

[The Military Workshop]

Both look excellent. I think I prefer the Yellow Fokker to the more well known Red Fokker.

 

[Hatman]

Good catch, Hatman. It is the same #425/17 as Manfred's all red tripe. This is definitely incorrect for Lothar's aircraft which should be #454/17. In fact, the field applied paint, like the yellow on this craft, often obscured the serial numbers altogether. Manfred's red tripe was factory painted red and that is why his #425/17 is properly readable over the red paint. I assume this is a show paint job and that JJD will correct such a basic error on production models. -- Al

The ID number on the Baron's plane; does #425/17 mean it was the 425th plane manufactured in the year 1917? Does anyone know if this is correct

 

[lancer]

The ID number on the Baron's plane; does #425/17 mean it was the 425th plane manufactured in the year 1917? Does anyone know if this is correct

Hi Hatman. Logically, that would make sense, but it isn't true. The initial 2 tripes were designated F-1 102/17 and F-1 103/17 (These were the two V-4 triplanes that were built as combat test machines). The following production orders for the triplane were in three batches. The first batch was re-designated Dr.I and numbered 100 thru 119/17 and this included the two F-1's. The second batch was numbered Dr.I 121 thru 220. The third and final batch was numbered Dr.I 400 thru 599/17. Triplane production total only reached 320 machines. There is an obvious gap in the numbering system which I don't have the answer to. So, since there were only 320 total tripes built (not including a prototype or two), the #425/17 does not mean the 425th tripe built, only that it was a third batch aircraft from Fokker. It also cannot mean the 425th aircraft built overall in 1917 as the triplane was not ordred until July 1917 and many hundreds of different aircraft would have been built by then. Sorry this is so long winded but hope it helps. -- Al

 

[whdamon]

More crew, more crew!!! Never a plane collector, but these have changed all that.....checking the door everyday waiting for the Red fellow, but again for me it is the crews I can stage around them.

Walt Damon

 

[PJDeluhery]

I'm with you, Walt. An aerodrome backdrop with some servicing crews and vehicles would be great. Maybe a couple of pilots chating over a motorcycle?

 

[lancer]

I'm with you, Walt. An aerodrome backdrop with some servicing crews and vehicles would be great. Maybe a couple of pilots chating over a motorcycle?

You wouldn't be looking for Errol Flynn on a bike with a drunken David Niven in the sidecar, would you? -- Al

 

[whdamon]

Any figure of the Baron show up in John's display of future releases??? Havn't seen him in any of the recently posted figures from the London Show

Walt Damon

 

[Hatman]

Hi Hatman. Logically, that would make sense, but it isn't true. The initial 2 tripes were designated F-1 102/17 and F-1 103/17 (These were the two V-4 triplanes that were built as combat test machines). The following production orders for the triplane were in three batches. The first batch was re-designated Dr.I and numbered 100 thru 119/17 and this included the two F-1's. The second batch was numbered Dr.I 121 thru 220. The third and final batch was numbered Dr.I 400 thru 599/17. Triplane production total only reached 320 machines. There is an obvious gap in the numbering system which I don't have the answer to. So, since there were only 320 total tripes built (not including a prototype or two), the #425/17 does not mean the 425th tripe built, only that it was a third batch aircraft from Fokker. It also cannot mean the 425th aircraft built overall in 1917 as the triplane was not ordred until July 1917 and many hundreds of different aircraft would have been built by then. Sorry this is so long winded but hope it helps. -- Al

Thanks for the info; I'm going to have to read up on all of this; it sounds interesting.

 

[PJDeluhery]

You wouldn't be looking for Errol Flynn on a bike with a drunken David Niven in the sidecar, would you? -- Al

Yes! How-EVER did you guess??