forum.ww1aircraftmodels.com
WW1 Aircraft Modeling => What's New => Topic started by: Derrick on November 02, 2015, 05:41:53 AM
-
Saw this on another site an inbox review of the Fokker from Merit for those of you interested in that scale.
http://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?showtopic=58949
-
Thanks for posting this review. I am attaching the list of things missed found in the review. To these I will add a few. Just to be fair and honest I don't have the kit and am assuming that the sprues shown are the "Final" production version.
The list from the review:
1. The actual plane had a celluloid window in the upper wing right over the wing spar. This was intended to check it. Merit just added an engraved rectangle and it is too close to the wing leading edge.
2. The cowling was clearly made from two main separate parts. So, there was a step in the front face and a visible line of rivets on the main part edge (to fix the front part). The step looks faint and the rivets are missing.
3. The plane had two metal plates intended to protect the surface of the upper fuselage from machine gun blast. There are not there.
4. In the same part, there should be one oil and fuel tank plug on each side. It seems both of them are missing.
5. The plane had not the 6 fixtures seen under the landing gear wing. It had just two square maintenance panels to get access to the bungee chords used to fix the landing gear.
6. There was no plain (wood) bulkhead behind the pilot. The hole was closed by a canvas rectangle fixed with wire to the metal tube structure.
My additions:
1. The plywood fairings on the wing undersides need to go.
2. The DVII type instrument panel
3. The seat is suspect
4. It appears the stitching on the fuselage underside is molded on both halves, could be difficult to sand and fill if needed
5. The fuselage shape at the plywood side fairings seem suspect.
6. The Pump seems undersized but this is not an issue as it shouldn't be there anyway. The DR1 had a tube/pipe with a valve on the end running down the right side.
7. The control stick and handles look odd. At least to me?
8. The cockpit floor is molded as 1 solid piece
9. The wheels/wheel covers look Odd.
I have decided to add a couple of things that look good:
1. I think the engine is probably better than it looks, once assembled and painted.
2. There is a Map case included that looks pretty good
3. They give the basics for the ammo bins
4. The side framing looks usable
5. The PE MG parts look good.
Now, all of this being said I will buy at least one! Most of the stuff can be fixed easily with a little modeling skill applied. I am glad someone has molded this kit in 1/24th scale. I hope it is successful and we see more beyond the 3 announced.
RAGIII
PS: The reviewer mentions that this kit reminds him of the Revelle 1/28th kit. I agree after looking at some of the parts, in particular the wings, prop, and struts.
PPS: It looks as though my statement about the engine detail is correct if one wants a Clerget 8)
-
Now available: http://earlyaero.com/merit-internationals-124-fokker-dr-1-model-kit-now-available/
-
Regardless, it's a Dr.I, and that's all I need to know. Having already seen the review on LSP (I'm a moderator there, so I visit several times daily), I'm not convinced at all that it's a really good kit, but I believe can at least be the basis for something attractive.
It's also been pointed out that the engine may depict a Clerget instead of an Oberursel, but I simply cannot confirm that.
-
meh.
-
The old 28th scale Revell kit may capture the overall look a little better in my opinion. Not sure what this new one costs but I'm thinking the old Revell kit can be had cheaper. At the end of the day why not just wait for the inevitable WNW kit.....
-
Having a closer look at the sprues I noticed something strange in the engine parts: a double row of holes in the front crankcase, 18 (+2 spares) push rods... that's not an Oberursel, it's a Clerget! :o
So unless you decide to do Josef Jacobs' black, Camel-engined triplane, every other option is wrong about the engine. And JJ's machine would need a 1/24 Camel propeller.
-
Having a closer look at the sprues I noticed something strange in the engine parts: a double row of holes in the front crankcase, 18 (+2 spares) push rods... that's not an Oberursel, it's a Clerget! :o
So unless you decide to do Josef Jacobs' black, Camel-engined triplane, every other option is wrong about the engine. And JJ's machine would need a 1/24 Camel propeller.
I believe you are correct. I have tried to remain very positive about this release but needing an aftermarket Engine right out of the gate is pretty disheartening !
RAGIII
-
So that would render the box art null and void then?
Best wishes
Nigel
-
On account of the coal shortage @ the NP, if you have been naughty this year Santa will bring you this kit.
(http://todaysparentsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/FrusrtatedChild.jpg)
-
So has anyone physically got this kit in their hands or are all the critiques based on website sprue photos and assumptions?
Also, just wondering, how many here actually would want to buy a 1/24 DR.1 vs just nitpick at one?
Not defending Merit here but I would like to see an honest, objective review from someone who has the kit and the necessary credentials to critique it.
Dave Wilson
Gold Coast
Australias
-
Hi Dave, 1/24 is my favorite scale. I'm on record here saying so from years ago.
I'd buy a nice Dr.I in 1/24 should one ever be produced. This isn't it.
-
Let's just look at the MGs.
Probably not fair to compare them to the 1:32 Gaspatch models (OTOH, why not, they're 25% smaller in scale?)
(http://www.scaleplasticandrail.com/kaboom/images/stories/gaspatch/newguns/DSC03255.JPG)
You'd hope they'd at least match the detail/fidelity of the 1:32 WNW Spandaus. (cocking handles separate parts and not shown, of course.)
(http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh640/UncleTony1917/Screen%20Shot%202015-11-03%20at%206.37.47%20PM_zpsfzsqcotj.png)
Well, if not that, then maybe 1:32 Roden?
(http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh640/UncleTony1917/file_zps42958c58.jpg)
In fact, this is what you get:
(http://i1255.photobucket.com/albums/hh640/UncleTony1917/Screen%20Shot%202015-11-03%20at%206.35.30%20PM_zpsqx4x2k4m.png)
-
So has anyone physically got this kit in their hands or are all the critiques based on website sprue photos and assumptions?
Also, just wondering, how many here actually would want to buy a 1/24 DR.1 vs just nitpick at one?
Not defending Merit here but I would like to see an honest, objective review from someone who has the kit and the necessary credentials to critique it.
Dave Wilson
Gold Coast
Australias
Dave,
I was pretty open about NOT having the kit in my post. I was also very open about my intentions to buy at least one. I am not a nit picker by nature,( If you ever looked at one of my builds you would know that to be true ;D ). The first 6 items were done by a reviewer with the kit in hand. ( The link is in the opening post in this thread). As for his credentials, I don't know. some things can be discerned from Sprue shots. I will stick to the ones that can.
1. The somewhat triangular ply panels on the wing leading edges should not be on the undersurfaces.
2. The DVII type instrument panel with Bosche style Magneto should not be there
3. The seat is narrow and not shaped correctly ( This kit isn't alone here)
4. The cockpit floor panel is wrong
5. The engine is not correct for the scheme
I have no intention of turning this into one of those discussions frequently seen on other forums. I am a little disappointed in what I see on the sprues but will pop for one ASAP.
RAGIII
-
Thanks Rick and Bo
I'm not wanting to turn this into any kind of finger pointing exercise as seen on certain other forums but the general tone of the thread was extremely negative based on sprue photos and a review from another forum by someone whose credentials I am not aware of.
If the Merit DR.1 is flawed then it's a magic opportunity for the aftermarket industry.
I hasten to add I am no expert on any WW1 aircraft but I am pleased that a company has the confidence to produce new WW1 models. Given how few manufacturers support large scale WW1, I would not want Merit to think we are poised to attack them every time. Constructive criticism and support and encouragement to do more is my wish.
Dave Wilson
Gold Coast
Australia
-
Dave, points well taken. I hope builders and buyers of this kit will prove my negative impressions wrong.
OTOH, a slightly contrarian viewpoint -- rather than voting with pocketbook on a um, so-so phone-it-in offering in hopes that maybe they'll try harder in the future, I'd rather be spending my dollars keeping the fanatics like WNW, Aviattic, Pheon, Taurus, CSM etc afloat.
-
Happy to endorse your thoughts 100% Bo and respect your observations Rick. The overall quality of WW1 models now- mainstream and aftermarket- is just astonishing and we as WW1 fanatics are all winners.
I am super keen to get up close and personal with the new Copper State Models AW FK.8. So good to see model companies showing confidence in 1/48th again.
Itching to see what Wingnuts pops out for Christmas and keenly awaiting the Eduard SE5a. Then there's that Takom German artillery piece highlighted on the forum a few days back- had to buy that!.,..Now Master Box are turning out brilliant 1/35th sets of WW1 figures..it's all so tempting.
I am very happy to endorse businesses like Aviattic, WnW, Taurus, Pheon and CSM...add in Tommys War, Master Box and Takom too!
Dave Wilson
Gold Coast
Australia
-
I'd rather be spending my dollars keeping the fanatics like WNW, Aviattic, Pheon, Taurus, CSM etc afloat
I absolutely agree with Bo's point of view.
S.
-
Hello
I have just received the kit and I can say I am happy with it.
Thank’s to the first revue, no deception, I was informed qualities and defaults
My first impression is the quality looks like a Roden kit.
Details are not good enough if you know a little Fokker Dr1, too simplified, but general impression is quite good.
It’s a very good opportunity for little and passionate hobby shop to produce resin parts, photoetched, decals...
The scale is very interesting; I’ll buy probably next SE5 and wait for Spad.
Hannants 55 £ 1/32 Roden, 50 £ 1/24 Fokker Merit, it’s correct
Now, I need an Oberursel …
Thank’s Merit to try to offer us new models
philippe
-
Philippe,
what is about use a CSM 1:28 scale Oberursel?
Cheers
Martin
-
I don’t know the kit and its sizes
but if it was right for the Revell, it's probably too small
philippe
-
Dave, points well taken. I hope builders and buyers of this kit will prove my negative impressions wrong.
OTOH, a slightly contrarian viewpoint -- rather than voting with pocketbook on a um, so-so phone-it-in offering in hopes that maybe they'll try harder in the future, I'd rather be spending my dollars keeping the fanatics like WNW, Aviattic, Pheon, Taurus, CSM etc afloat.
Bo, well stated! I am thinking that the Engine is a real issue to someone like myself that just isn't capable of scratch building a replacement. So I MAY hold off to see if Taurus, Aviattic, Copper State etc. Make a replacement ! In the mean time, Aviattic has some awesome figures and other stuff in the pipeline 8)
RAGIII
-
I am thinking that the Engine is a real issue to someone like myself that just isn't capable of scratch building a replacement.
RAGIII
[/quote]
Me too. If the engine is wrong (and I don't know that it is), that would be real problematic for me.
-
The engine in the kit clearly appears to depict a Clerget.
Oberursel UR.II
(http://www.oldhangar.airart3d.com/wp-content/gallery/oberursel-ur-ii/engine0000.jpg)
(http://www.oldhangar.airart3d.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/engine0010.jpg)
Clerget
(http://www.bigscalemodels.com/planes/sopwith/mark-miller/clergeplansm.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/Clerget_9B_FAAM.JPG/300px-Clerget_9B_FAAM.JPG)
Note hump for timing gear at front of Clerget, with two pushrods per cylinder, induction pipes flat in section and entering at rear of cylinder head. Oberursel UR.II has a single pushrod per cylinder situated in the rear, roundish induction pipes entering sides of cylinder heads, front of crankcase is essentially flat. These are just the gross differences.
-
I just looked at photos posted by Richard of Aviattic from Telford. The last few included shots of this kit built up. The Engine is a Clerget, no doubt in my mind! Otherwise the overall impression is good. JMHO,
RAGIII
-
If this works this is the first one of these I have seen built up. Really looks like it has possibilities... if only they hadn't screwed up on the engine.
RAGIII
https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/12246699_10205377013765274_3445159718545329952_n.jpg?oh=5d74756c47972cb37610b6e9df144bc5&oe=56E9213E
https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11254130_10205377014885302_6977363751193744505_n.jpg?oh=e006011cd37e1dd2f1765f3f0feea46f&oe=56ED31C1
https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t1.0-9/12274546_10205377014565294_8396783891800428567_n.jpg?oh=ced9a77b02761155de19707fc07e1778&oe=56F23012
-
Having built many of them, it sure looks like they were channeling Revell,circa 1956. But a fantastic base to build upon once the AM gears up for her!
-
Interesting read here. It appears I may have overlooked a few things on my own review.