Eindecker E.II and E.III from Eduard

[StephenLawson]

I may have found a problem even before I start.

The production E.I had an 80hp Oberursel (U.0) rotary and wings of 8.95 m in length. The production E.II had the 100hp Oberursel (U.I) and wings of 9.75 m (9520mm.) The E.III had the 100hp Oberursel (U.I) with wings of 9.99 m (10030mm.)

All four of the Eduard kit wings are the same length with only the cowling cut outs different to denote the E.III & E.III types.

Also the 7 cylinder rotary (representing the U.0 ) in the kit is a dead giveaway that Eduard plans on an earlier version release.

[Sreiko]

You have just take what I want to said- I just wanted to print some drawings today and make comparasion between the drawings as well kit. Wings look somehow strange but I did not take any measure over it.

So this will be conversion from the very start... By the way- I did not understand you about the engine ?

Cheers

[StephenLawson]

Greetings Srecko;

The 7 cylinder rotary (representing the U.0 ) in the kit is is the type that represents the Oberursel licence built version of the 80hp Gnome. It was the motor used on the Fok. E.I.

[Sreiko]

Thank you for that, I did not take attention at all. I will see later, but I have seen there two engines.

Cheers

[josef scott]

Stephen,

Eduard appears to have based their wing spans on Peter Grosz's assertion in the E.I/E.II Datafile that the E.IIs and E.IIIs in operational use carried wings of the same span. Close scrutiny of their geometry (location of the rigging points and their relationship to the national markings) in the available photos bears this out.

I have noticed from the sprue-shots that the "squared" cowling cheek that Eduard have included resemble that used on the E.I rather than the E.II. The E.I's lower edge is roughly level with the bottom of the cowling. The E.II closely follows the contour of the chin, going down to the lower longeron.

I hope Eduard is not intending to use this fuselage for the E.I, as the M5 is considerably different from the M14.

[TeamStewart]

Originally Posted by SCMc

Here is a link for a 1/72 Fokker E.III in cellon based on an Eduard photo etch set.

Steve

HAHA!

I might have known it would be one of Mr. Ugulano's.

Looks great!

[StephenLawson]

Originally Posted by josef scott

Stephen,

Eduard appears to have based their wing spans on Peter Grosz's assertion in the E.I/E.II Datafile that the E.IIs and E.IIIs in operational use carried wings of the same span. Close scrutiny of their geometry (location of the rigging points and their relationship to the national markings) in the available photos bears this out.

I have noticed from the sprue-shots that the "squared" cowling cheek that Eduard have included resemble that used on the E.I rather than the E.II. The E.I's lower edge is roughly level with the bottom of the cowling. The E.II closely follows the contour of the chin, going down to the lower longeron.

I hope Eduard is not intending to use this fuselage for the E.I, as the M5 is considerably different from the M14.

Greetings Josef;
You are right in your assumption. When the E.II was inservice many were refitted with the longer wings. This simply gave it a higher ceiling. But the official designation was still the smaller wing area. Also here is a comment from Eduard's newsletter.

". . .The only possible drawback with this kit is its long development time of three years. During that span, there was a lot of research development, but we weren’t able to apply all the new knowledge to our kit. So, if you will find some discrepancies comparing our kit with the newest drawings, be discreet with your criticisms. Historical research is so fast these days that it is difficult to incorporate all of them into a kit with a longer development period. Our effort to include the newest research delayed our Fw 190D project; remember the troubles with the landing gear wells. It is always a tough decision. to stop a project and restart again, and I simply decided not to change the Eindecker design despite new research revelations. . ."

But since I purchased the kit with my own money, I and anyone else for that matter have the right to criticize. This is after all not their first run at the project.

[josef scott]

Stephen,

Thanks for posting that. I would be very curious to what "new" research they are referring! I've been delaying putting out my Eindecker drawings for public consumption until they are all finished, but the E.II and E.III are more or less done now. Sorry if I seem enigmatic.

I think one will be able to put together a first-rate kit with this, with some judicious alterations!

[StephenLawson]

Greeting Josef;

So much comes my way in the form of info on what people are doing behind the scenes. Thanks for the confirmation and I sincerely look forward to your drawings. All the best for the holidays and coming new year!

Stephen

[Graham Hunter]

Originally Posted by Sreiko

One question- Eindecker is know as simple finished plane in natural color of fabric. This is the image of E.III taken during the escort of the Zepellin during the air raid on Bucuresti, Romania. Plane on the left side look like it have some camo patches on the side of fuselage. Or this is possible just shadows and influence of dirt. Hard to believe that it is camo patches but you never know.

Cheers

I am reading On a Wing and a Prayer by Joshua Levine right now and interestingly enough (coincidentally too) I just read this morning in the "Fighters and the Fokker Scourge" chapter a dairy entry of John Andrews of 24 Squadron; "In the early days, up to the Somme, the Fokkers were coloured a sort of battleship grey."

Now in the context this was written it appears Andrews had some experience with the Fokker so his assertion that they were battleship grey could be valid. I see that he shot down one Fokker in July 1916. However in the heat of battle and at distances greater than 500 feet you basically see a silouette of the EA. So CDL could easily be seen as battleship grey.