Fokker Dr.I Eduard 1/48 kit 1136

Sreiko · 24 May 2008, 02:03 PM

Thank you both- I understand you now

And by the way no problem to place any kind of criticisim to my build, any comment is welcome. I have see not the image and compare it with my model. So model is just near the monitor and in position similar to the images you have post. It look correct to me but to be honest i did not take any remeasure with this part. Also maybe it is not good to compare old images with new images as well my lens on my camera have no for sure the same properties as the lens on the camera used many decades ago. Different optical properties of lenses make the object different especially in the outer perimeter of the image.

So I have feeling that model is good but if you more prefer I could take measure of this part. It is more then obvious that Fokker Dr.I is one of the most important aircraft for the WW1 enthusiast as well many hars topic was held here and also great attention is pay to every possible detail. As well I am the first one to release finished kit it is normal that I am under focus so every of your comment is welcome not only to me but to the thousand of others. This web site is reference place and definitely is that what is said here will be final demand to the many modelers who are intend to go itno the build of the Eduard model.

Cheers

dak66 · 24 May 2008, 05:03 PM

But as Srieko said the Photography is different. I was also going to mention that the angle of both photographs are different as well,the only way to be sure would be to measure the length .

StephenLawson · 24 May 2008, 07:06 PM

Greetings all;
The landing gear legs do look a bit long, but that is an easy fix since Srecko said that they were only attached and not fixed. The best method is the three view drawings found in the Datafile Special on the Fok. Dr.I. Measure the gap between the chin pan and th topof the wing axle and fix accordingly.

One minor detail are the latches on the undersurface of the kit wing axle were not there on the F.I (or the Dr.I) types.

Just by my eye they are is "about" 1/8 an inch inch too long and the wing axle may lift up after fixing in place.

StephenLawson · 24 May 2008, 07:12 PM

Compare these side by side.

Image presented in reverse to show comparison.

Ross_Moorhouse · 24 May 2008, 07:41 PM

I would also question the size of the wheels in the kit photo too.

dak66 · 24 May 2008, 07:49 PM

Or maybe like Srieko said they aren't attached in a permanent way that is why it looks that way and i agree with Ross the wheels look a little small .

Sreiko · 24 May 2008, 11:12 PM

Friends,

Thank you for taking more attention on this detail. First at all- I have been photographed some before with camera which we call here “idiot camera”. They have no adjustment and in some on them I really don’t look like my self. Answer is in lens which gives some distortion on the image. Also you have to consider that kind of distortion on the archive images.

As a person who have draw several reference drawings I have to said that many of drawings made from ’60 to ’80 and based on photographs include many of mistakes. So only relevant source are technical drawings and data displayed on it.

So we have here extract from the Idflieg document which show height from surface up to the engine axle [as well some other data]. This is 1575 mm and in 1/48 scale this is 32.81 mm. Only relevant method of measure is to put the kit in three point position as well this is the method of measurement in the aviation during the static testing.

Image show that I have place model in three point position. You must be sure that kit is horizontal and it central axes are horizontal. Then you can make measure. I have place small coins and paper pieces until I get it into the position.

Final image show that this height is to regret 33.3 mm this problem is caused by camera which is not in the same level to the horizontal axle. Actual height is the 33 mm and this is 0.2 mm higher. Even this error on the ruler you see is not very sensitive in that scale.

Problem could appear in the pressure I have used to put the undercarriage leg enough deep into the holes of the axle wing. This is the only possible problem and you should keep attention on this. So I have found this detail on Eduard kit almost precise and enough correct.

So be very careful about the direct use of photographs!!! They could not give correct proportion as you might like to have. Basic reference drawings and measure of the actual preserved sample is the only relevant method of obtaining of the correct data.

Stephen- this is correct about the latches. How could I miss this detail!

Cheers

Familyman · 24 May 2008, 11:45 PM

The wheels are ok, I think. At least they are absolutely the same size as the DML Dragon kit's wheels. I'm talking about the total size of the wheels. It could be, however, that the tires are a little bit too thick and the wheel disk too small respectively. Even tiny differences in these might be quite visible.

The front landing gear struts in the Eduard kit are 17 mm. About the same length as in the DML dragon kit (the pegs going in the attachment holes are measured out). The rear struts you can't compare easily, since the Eduard kit's struts are supposed to be attached on the sides of the fuselage and the Dragon kit's on the bottom of the fuselage.

Anyway, the Eduard rear struts are 18 mm and Dragon struts 15 mm. The groove on the fuselage sides on the Eduard kit, where the struts are supposed to be attached are 2 mm. That leaves the Eduard struts at least 1 mm longer. Could it be that the Eduard rear struts are too long? The axel wing angle in Sreiko's photos suggest that too

Mikko

Southside Bucky · 25 May 2008, 02:46 AM

Here's an excellent comparison photo of F.I 102/17, taken from almost the same angle:

http://www.fokkerdr1.com/Dr1_102_4.jpg

If I was going to be hyper-critical, I'd say all the struts, lifting handles, and 'step up' were just a little too thick as well. But then, aren't they always?

Southside Bucky · 25 May 2008, 03:33 AM

The upper wing "spar check window" is in the wrong place too. It's set too far back.

Best picture I can find for comparison:

http://www.fokkerdr1.com/Dr1-167-17.jpg

Not a massive problem, 'cause the raised edge to that window is also wrong. So it should be sanded off and re-sited in line with the main spar.

How Eduard got this wrong, I don't know...