My favorite varies according to type.

Bomber-The Gotha GV
Angular, impressively ugly

Two-place biplane fighter-The Bristol F 2
Asthetically, the suspended fuselage and the round radiator are neat.

Three-place fighter, The Caudron R.11
An impressive monster.

Single seat biplane fighter-The SPAD 7,12,13 series
Based on a race-plane design and looked it!

For pure asthetics, single seat sesquiplane/biplane types-The Pflaz D3 and Nieuport 28 run neck-and neck in my book.

Monoplane two-place fighter- Hansa-Brandenburg W 29
Low wing- clean/clear field of fire for the rear gunner.

Triplane fighter - The Fokker Dr.1
Fokker radically improved Sopwith's design, especially with the tapering wing-span.

All- metal aircraft-The Junkers J4 Mule-An armored ground attack aircraft. Probably the ugliest, but most rugged of the war-As I recall, none were ever known to be shot down.

The Nieuports 11 through 27 were cute, but no sleek lines.

Least favorite, but historically impressive:

Asthetically, the Sopwith Camel appearantly was where we got the saying, "A camel is a horse designed by a committee".

Designed as a Fokker Triplane killer, from its track record with the Red Baron's Flying Circus, it was a death trap for the average Birtish pilot. The infamous Red Baron shot down a flock of them before he got his.

The saying with the RFC boys was "With the camel, you had to out-fight the enemy, because unlike with the SE5a, you could not out-run them".

Eddie

Fokker D.VII for me. Rugged looks, excellent performance, no rigging and lots of great colour schemes



Richard

I love the gangly British string bags. Yeah, they're next to impossible to rig and half your build time is devoted to that, but they capture the essence of early aviation with the space between the upper and lower wings and all that rigging. My favorites are the BE family, including the RE8, with the FE2b close behind.
Cheers,
Bud

I like these too, but as you say they nearly impossible to rig, not so much because of the amount of rigging, but rather the poor or non-existant rigging diagrams with the kits as well as the lack of rigging point guides (unfinished holes, anchoring moguls) molded into the kits themselves.

In fact I have a DH4, that between the boxtop and the instructions, there is a clear contradiction for the wing cross-bracing!

Eddie

Check this out

https://aeroscale.kitmaker.net/forums/145540&page=1/[/quote]

I have to chime in with another vote for the Albatros D.V/Va

Well...lets drink a cup of coffee while see cartoon

Definetely my vote is for Arco DH-2, at the Srvice of his Majesty, and my option 2 is the Dr.1

And, do not hate rigging, but some planes definetely are an exageration:






Cheers.

Al

No 1 got to be the Camel, difficult to fly but shot down more enemy aircraft than any other RFC machine, and Biggles flew it!
No 2 Biff, Bristol F2B considering the cross sections it ought to look like a packing case, but it doesn't. Strong, fast and potent
No 3 (Sorry Terri) Pfalz DIII, better looking and better built than the Albie and the wings stayed on in a dive
Worst DH5, somebody only had a ruler designing that one

Andrew, are you talking about the Biggles that apears in Fly Boys movie?

Cheers.

Al

Sorry Terri ! The Pfalz is the worlds sexiest aircraft and my favorite ! Almost finished another Eduard kit in my own personal markings

Heeeyyy!!!!! a plane could be sexiest????!!!!! I saw sexiest pin ups in WW2 planes, but never an sexiest WW1 plane jajajajaja...OK... is a joke ... but how to define a sexiest airplane? the lines, the curves, the "nice to the eye" factor?

Cheers.

Al

I've been addicted to the Spad XIII ever since seeing one about 50 years ago in an Air Force museum. It just "talked to me" it was so beautiful. I'm new to the group and I'll start building a 1/46 Spad as my first plastic model as soon as I find the right kit. Any suggestions from you old hands out there?

Thanks,
Clarence