Wednesday, November 1, 2017

Roden's Fokker F1 Triplane in 1/72

With the recent rejuvenation of interest in WWI aerial combat, a few model kits winged their way to my doorstep.  One of these arrivals was a Roden Fokker F1.
An F1 triplane?  Were not only three of these aircraft built?  Yes, that is true.  Only three of the designated "F1s" were built in 1917 but which aircraft conveys as much romanticism as the Fokker triplane?
Only two of the three F1s saw service.  In all three, the aircraft was either shot down or destroyed during testing.  Voss was shot down flying 103/17 and von Richthofen scored his 60th in 102/17.  After Richthofen changed back to the Albatros DV, Wolff was shot down while flying 102/17. The F1 was the predecessor to the more widely produced Dr1.
Having not built a WWI 1/72 scale aircraft in many years, I had forgotten the fiddly nature of assembling one of these models.  After a few trials and tribulations, this F1 is ready for aerial combat over the skies of my gaming table.  Expect more aircraft to slip into the work queue.

What is a reasonable Painting Point (PP) tally for a 1/72nd WWI aircraft?  Based on the time it took to complete, 50 PPs seems not unfair.  Could I have painted five 28mm cavalry given the same effort?  Yes.  Perhaps, the cavalry would have taken less time.

33 comments:

  1. Absolutly superb, I love this kind of plane!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Very cool and iconic. Quite a change from Assyrians too!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lovely little plane, wouldn't it be 15 points in AHPC terms?
    Best Iain

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad you like it, Iain.

      You are correct regarding the 15PP for AHPC. I had 15PP entered into the database as a default value but 15PP just did not seem sufficient for the amount of work required.

      When I put it into the context of equivalent effort, the 1/72 airplane in AHPC terms is equivalent to painting 1x28mm infantry (5PP) and 1x28mm cavalry (10PP). Knowing the work that went into the aircraft, I figured a "modification" to the APHC was warranted, for me anyway. That is why I equated the plane to five 28mm cavalry.

      What would you assess as a fair PP tally?

      Delete
    2. I think the point is that for instance one 28mm figure is worth the same as any other you might spend more time on say a landsknecht but he's still worth the same amount as an Egyptian archer who might well take a little less time, but that's the AHPC rate, I'm certain you could devise a sliding scale relating to effort imputed but I would imagine it would take considerable time to administer it ,which could potentially impact negatively on other hobby activities, like painting!
      Best Iain

      Delete
    3. I always count one 28mm infantry as any other one 28mm figure regardless of effort. The problem for me is that one 1/72nd scale aircraft model does not equate to the same effort (15PP) as 3 x 28mm infantry (again 15PP). Maybe you can put together an aircraft model in the same time it takes to paint 3 x 28mm infantry but I cannot!

      Delete
    4. Now you're into model making! It took me ages to build a 1/56 (28mm )bren gun carrier and that would be the same points and let's not start on the victrix french line infantry figures which took forever!
      Best Iain

      Delete
    5. Iain, I see your point! The 15PP for a 1/72 scale aircraft is only for the actual painting of the model. How do you account for time spent building the thing? Is that simply a "sunk" effort and not counted?

      The 50PPs I assigned to the plane was to account for total effort in both building and painting. Building a model in preparation for painting does take away time that could be spent painting. That building effort ought to be tracked somewhere, I think.

      As for assemblying Victrix French infantry, I have not tackled that task and do not care to tackle it!

      Delete
    6. At the end of the day, the only one keeping score is the painter. I find it is a wonderful system to maintain my momentum on a project. That said, Iain those 28mm Egytian Archers are how I pad my score to account for all those Landsknechts!

      Delete
  4. I love these WW1 airplanes,they have such a great steampunk vibe and are quite characterful compared to their modern compatriotes.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 'Those magnificent men in their flying machines,
    they go up tiddly up up,
    they go down tiddly down down.
    They enchant all the ladies and steal all the scenes,
    with their up tiddly up up
    and their down tiddly down down'.

    I know little of the genre, but have fancied having a couple of machines for 15 minute fun type games, most likely on hexes, so your mention of the rare F1 had me dashing to check out my die cast Corgi - but I have the DR1 in resplendent red!

    I bought the DR1 and Sopwith Camel a couple of years ago, for easy fun sort of game, most likely on hexes, but it never happened, so I will be looking out for your Canvas Eagles posts for some motivation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Norm, you have two planes, a hex system, and the rules are downloadable without cost. You are ready to give your models a taste of dogfighting. Oh, you may need an accomplice.

      Delete
  6. In terms of aerial combat WWI is the one that pretty much is the only one that interests me and you did a fine job! Oh and the F1 triplane is also my favorite.

    Christopher

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is the only period of air combat that interests me as well. I wonder why?

      Delete
  7. Lovely work on this one. I hadn't realised that there were only three of them ever built.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Very nice work Jonathan. And I learned some interesting things too!

    ReplyDelete
  9. There's a real romanticism to these aircraft, which belies the deadly and pretty much insane nature of the combats (no parachutes!!!!). I must confess I knew only of the DR1, I was oblivious to the existence of the F.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nathan, having only three of the model F1s built, overlooking it is understandable.

      Perhaps WWI aerial combat has been romanticized due to the mano-a-mano nature of combat in a new environment at a time when ground warfare was fought at a large and anonymous scale?

      Delete
  10. Lovely model Jonathan. I can feel your pain with the kit assembly. I think as we get older we become more impatient and less tolerant for fiddly things. I am the same with nuts and bolts...I have worked with many engineers over the years who love using multitudes of nuts and bolts...and why do they always put them in places that are hard to get a wrench into?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Mark! Perhaps the fiddliness of the model is a symptom of aging eyes and hand-to-eye coordination? Perhaps it is intolerance and impatience?

      Often "Build" and "Maintain" processes are completely separate with little interaction. That is why the "builders" are not thinking much about the "maintainers."

      Delete
  11. Excellent work! This is something I'd love to do WWI dogfights. Not sure I'd have enough patience to build the planes anymore though?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Ray! Your patience question is one I wonder about myself.

      Delete
  12. Great looking plane, Jon! While assembling them may be a pain (and I too dislike assembly), you only need a few, right? A for PP, they're your statistics; assign a value you deem suitable! :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "You only need a few?" That's a good one, Peter! You know neither of us can abide by that logic!

      Delete
  13. So many projects and eras, so little time. Great looking model, how does it do on the table?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are preaching to the choir, my friend!

      As for how it does on the table, we will see next time we roll out Canvas Eagles.

      Delete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...