Those of you who know me know I love WWI subjects, as well as classic kits.
So I bought two Gothas by Roden, the G II/III and the GV.
Frankly, I am put off by Roden’s unnecessarily complex manner of assembling the wings as well as the zillions of tiny parts, which is compounded by the 1/72 scale.
So I located and got myself a mint condition Aurora Gotha GV in 1/48th scale, and for some reason it looks like the designer of this kit wanted it to make sense to the builder, and not wear the builder out before he/she was done.
Their wings have built-in dihedral tabs, as well as Aurora molding some struts into a single triangular assemblies to facilitate simple assembly and alignment.
If I feel like “dressing” up this kit closer to Roden’s detail, other then adding link rods to the ailerons, the main thing would be a simple addition of a curved piece of paper or something added to the underside of the tunnel to fill in for the boxy fuselage sides would be it. Maybe I would also add an internal link for the elevator horns. But at 1/48th scale, no biggie.
In “Googling” the subject, I cannot prove that certain aspects of Roden’s interpertation, where they have a walkway to the rear gunner was indeed a GV feature, nor the small windows on either side of the front gunner’s position actually apply to my G V. Frankly, this simply looks like a carry-over from their G II/III kit.
In fact in reading Aurora’s technical comprehensive detailed description of the Gotha, I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of their kit, nor origionality of their research. For instance, if I were to put little windows into the Aurora G V, then that would “knock-out” the factory spec data plate from that part of the fuselage.
Where they disagree, aside from the little windows, are the actual number of bombs and their placement, and in reading Aurora’s description, I do not see a lack of independent research in their description, whereas Roden’s basically looks “cookie-cutter” stuff off of Wikipedia, or something.
Faced with my situation, now I am not arguing cockpit detail minutia here, and knowing that no one is alive today frankly can say either way regarding these things, what do you fella’s think?
From “WWI in Plastic”, by Brad Hansen, Great Auk Publishing, 1979. In reviewing all the WWI kits at the time, we come to the Aurora Gotha:
If you want a massive and menacing looking German bomber, this is it. If you want an accurate Gotha G V, build it yourself. Harry Woodman, an expert builder and historian, delivered a scathing tirade against its infinite defects (see Scale Models April 1976). He says save the wheels, the nacelles and the crew. You can throw the rest out. Apparently, Aurora was unable to find an accurate plan of this plane and had to use several of poor quality. Still, for the average modeler, the kit has all kinds of charming features like an unusral method of joining the top wing and the unique gun-tunnel. Molded in that strange burgundy, the kit has markings of an unspecific aircraft.
On Aurora kits in general:
As a rule, Aurora kits are extremely well molded and are marked by generally good fit, highly finished surfaces and reasonable surfaced detail. In the mid-fifties accurate drawings of many W.W.I planes were often non-existant, so many of their models, while accurate by the data available then, have since proven to be too long, too short, with incorrect rib angles and so on. Wing surfaces are often too thin, and on most no reprtesentation of ribs exists on wing undersurfaces. Some kits are still very good in shape and plan form – others have since been shown to be composites of several aircraft.
From Harry Woodman’s “Scale Model Aircraft in Plastic Card”, M.A.P. Publishing, 1975, concerning the Aurora Gotha:
Several inaccurate drawings of the Gotha G V exist and this kit seems to be based on all of them. The wheels and possibly the nacelles may be useful.
That’s interesting, because besides what I basically found, which are minor differences, basically there is no significant difference between Roden’s and the Aurora Gotha.
To explain; except for the scale size difference:
The wing profiles, both top and bottom are the same.
The rudder and elevator profiles are the same.
The fuselage outline configurations are essentialy identical.
The landing gear/tail skid configurations are the same.
Now as for the Scale Models April 1976 article, I can only guess that this expert enjoyed “picking apart” someone else’s work, although we have not seen him produce a model kit work of his own.
Now if I were to assume Roden’s is more “true” in certain aspects the Aurora’s, all I would have to do is as follows:
Rearrange the bombs to have two under each wing instead of three, and three under the fuselage instead of two. This I am skeptical about, see below.
Add a brace to the tail skid and a couple to each of the upper horizontal stabilizer braces.
Add some wing-walks to each side of the engine necelles.
Add some small windows to the front fuselage. But I am especially skeptical about these since I can find WWI Gotha V images without them.
Add a couple of link rods to connect the upper and lower ailerons.
Extend the fuselage cowling in front of the pilot to the right a little.
Add an internal link rod between the elevator control horns inside the fuselage.
Add a couple extra bulkheads inside the fuselage, as well as filling in the top of the gun tunnel with a piece of paper or sheet plastic.
Adding some sort of fuselage fairing under the lower wing.
One interesting detail to note is that Roden has the builder trim the corners off the insides of the top wings where the chord narrows at about a 45 degree angle, where Aurora’s issue already has this done in the molding (duuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhh).[:-^]
As far as the parrabellem guns and their mounts, I do not see Roden’s as essentially any more accurate then Aurora’s. For this topic I would refer the reader to “Gunning for the Red Baron”, which among other things goes into intricate detail regarding the complex, Rube Goldberg-like gun mount commonly used by the Germans in WWI, and to date, I have seen nothing in plastic that comes anywhere near it. I mean this thing had a built-in device to swivel the front site for deflection, windage, etc., and the gun was not mounted on an actual pivot, but in fact mechanically attached with a geared arrangement to the ring that rotated around the gunner, more akin to the typical WWII turret.
And also, the same goes as for controls details. Roden’s release basically has the rudder bar, whereas Aurora’s does not. So that means that I the builder have to consider glueing a litle piece of plastic that I have filed to resemble a rudder bar to the Aurora kit’s cockpit floor. Gee, maybe I should go out and buy several books and a bunch of new tools before I do this level of work, eh?[:-^]
As for cockpit control details, neither one come anywhere to this:
And here is a photo that disagrees with Roden’s bomb arrangement as compared with Aurora’s:
Note: No little side windows like Roden’s has. In fact I would guess this is probably a photo that the Aurora boys also used. Also, if you look closely the little tripod struts holding the front of the engine necells are present, as with the Aurora kit, but not with Roden’s! (duuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhh)[:-^]
Now you would not say that this is an “innacurate photo”, would you?
I do agree that innacurate drawings of the Gotha do exist, and one of the worst offenders is a link from Wikipedia to a WWI Mechanics Illustrated magazine article, that literally shows a cutaway G V with both uper and lower rear guns, as well as a walkway going straight through what would be the fuel tank section of the fuselage! Maybe this is the one that inspired Roden’s release?
So far, even if the builder does all these minor changes, including embellishing the gun mounts, I still see less hassle then the average WWII subject kit loaded with all the aftermarket goodies to make it “just so”. I mean this is less “aftermarket” work then the average Me-262 subject.
As for Aurora’s kit markings, they in fact are of a specific aircraft, in fact one that is in fact covered by Roden’s Gotha V release that I also have. Now as for the exact size and placement, and as for the extra characters by the insignia, they can simply be left off more easily then we could debate that issue.
The other difference where I frankly qestion the Roden release over Aurora’s is the open fuselage walkway between the pilot and rear gunner. I see this as possible a “holdover” from their Gotha II/III kit was well. This is because I don’t know if you are aware of this, but the main difference between the GII/II and the GV was the locations of the gas tanks and bombs. The GII/III had its gas tanks in the engine necells (which they discovered later was a bad idea, ala the “Flyboys” movie where the wing is blown off when the gas tank explodes) and having an internal bomb bay/rack behind the pilot. For the GV, they moved the full fuel capacity into the fuselage center section, and knowing this, I do not see how or why they would need the walk-way as they would to release the bombs as with the GII/III, especially since it would be filled with a large gas tank.
Actually, so far I am of the opinion that the self-appointed expert Harry Woodman is “outa gas” as well.
Well Tom I do know one place you could get an abosolute definitive answer. If you post this question over in the Knights of the Sky GB there is a gentleman over there named Stephen who posses an imense knowledge of WWi aircraft and works in a museam dedicated to WWI aviation. he is also a master model builder so he probally the best person to ask.
As for the all the little differences of the 2 manufacturers, im afraid i cant comment but having built the Roden version in 1/72, im afraid the build came to a grinding halt when it came to the decals. Rodens are absolutely awfull…and remember, the fuse and the wings (Top and bottom) need decalling. Unless your using battery acid as a decal softener, i think theyre bin liners.
