So it was the Aerodrome thread not the Britmodeler thread as you first mentioned.

To be fair, the threads concerning Pheon on the Aerodrome are removed so there is no way for any of us to view them. Though over on the Aerodrome there is a link to the Pheon Sopwith Triplane resin fuselage in a review by James Fahey on another forum. LSP Posted 13 December 2010 - 07:25 AM
and it can be seen here.
No mention of the quotes there.

Maybe we can prevail on Mr. Fahey to post his findings in a thread of its own here too?

Another fellow on the Aerodrome thread somehow confused the Roden Fokker Triplane with their Sopwith Triplane and says he has the Encore issue from Squadron. As of this writing there is no Encore issue of the Roden plastic for the Sopwith Triplane in one of their augmented form.

Here is a great profile shot from cyoung57's account on flicker. Here. Note Hendon's interpretation of the PC12 & PC 10 .

Sounds like you need a scale conversion program you can get on the Internet, or convert the measurements to inches and just divide by 32. Easy..
I built the Roden Tripe OOB and am looking forward to the WNW release of the same subject. Hopefully they will have the Russian and French markings in their version as well.

I can't remember any huge problems with the kit. Fit was not too bad in my kit, in fact the wings went together pretty well and are quite sturdy. Only downer was the need to fill the gaps around the struts where they peirced the wings, and needing to drill the holes for the wires that go through the wings.
This was hit and miss and I had to fill errant holes a number of times.

"This is the Sopwith Triplane which is at the Hendon Museum. This image was taken in the late 1940s before the exhibits were on general display."

Here. is its history in a pdf format.

From the Fleet Air Arm Museum. Image from Karsten Palt. http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/

Yes. Top marks for observation. Why all the mystery and obfuscation? It surely can’t be that distasteful to you to quote something I've written, can it? I understand, given that the short fuselage issue was missed in your review, you might have been a little embarrassed by that but hey, even you make mistakes sometimes. I will say that after your recent treatment of James Fahey, I’m very surprised that you suggest asking him for assistance - but your conscience is your own affair.

The good thing in all this is that there is an easy means of correcting the issue (though I’m surprised that you didn’t mention that a while ago, as you seem to have known about it) but even better is the prospect of a kit from Wingnut Wings of the Sopwith Triplane in the future, which I have little doubt will be accurate in shape and detail. No date yet, but hopefully soon!

http://www.wingnutwings.com/ww/3C3ED00A8F7BFD4110D18C8180D8CC25

This is for anyone interested. An "in the box or first look" kit review by nature does not include comparisons between real and scale dimensions. That usually is seen in the forum "build logs" (blogs) or an Aeroscale "build review".

The "in the box or first look" kit review does deal with history, kit contents, (sometimes) instruction step explanations & clarifications, decal details and I include references. Only recently have I added images of temporarily joined (taped together) major components to show fit concerns. By the way a few posts back I did add the links to the membership's online builds here. I usually do that in these review discussion threads too.

But to repeat the kit has to be put together for overall length dimension comparisons so you usually won't see any in an "in the box" or "first look" review.

Now having said that, there is a place where the membership can voice its opinion about review content.
Click here.

I find the concept of a review (of whatever type) which doesn't include the reviewer's appraisal of the accuracy of the kit's parts, to be somewhat strange. Equally, the contention that shapes cannot be compared with the real thing before the model is constructed I also find slightly counter-intuitive; If good and reputable drawings are to hand, then it is much easier to make comparison of such things as wing span and chord, fuselage length etc. before construction starts. It has been the established way of doing things for such luminaries as Ray Rimell of Windsock for the past twenty-thirty years or more.

The accuracy of drawings is, of course, often open to question but if the reviewer cites their sources, then at least the prospective modeller can make up their own mind. Overall measurements on their own often don't suffice - witness the 1/48th Hasegawa Spitfire Mk.IX; as far as I know the overall length was not so much questioned as the distribution of various measurement points within the overall figure. In the specific case of the Sopwith Triplane, the overall length was not as important as the shortness concentrated in just the rear fuselage.

Whilst accuracy may not be at the top of everyone's agenda when considering a kit purchase, for many it is paramount and to ignore the issue in a review does seem slightly perverse - particularly if much of the rest of the review consists of a blow by blow account of how to construct the model when no construction has taken place; that would surely be more appropriate in a build review.

I had a look at Rowan Bayliss' thread in the link above and much of what people want, it seems, are links to other kit-related products - resin, etch, books and decals, in the main. So with that in mind here's a link to a review for Pheon Models decals for the Roden Sopwith Triplane by James Fahey on Hyperscale:

http://www.hyperscale.com/2010/reviews/decals/pheon320018reviewjf_1.htm

He also did a review for the same decal selection in 72nd and 48th scale here on Aeroscale:

https://aeroscale.kitmaker.net/review/4882

For the future, I hope that James will once again post reviews of our products and others here, as with the recent excellent comparison of available 1/32nd scale "lozenge" decals from DB, Pheon and Wingnut Wings:

https://aeroscale.kitmaker.net//features/4001

I am also pleased to say that reviews of Pheon products will soon be appearing on Aeroscale again, via Rowan Bayliss and others. Hopefully they will be linked to reviews of the kits for which they are intended and to other related products for the same kit.

After all, that is a part the service that Kitmaker and Aeroscale sets out to provide: a one-stop shop for modellers to read independent and helpful reviews of modelling products of all subjects and eras, as well as the valuable forum resources and a platform for manufacturers to make their products and future plans available for modellers' scrutiny.

It may be out of place but I feel theres more to this than first appears, past misunderstandings seem to colour some peoples views, which I feel rather sad about as EVERYONE here contributts, we may not all be right all the time.

But getting back to the issue addressed here of course the reviewer can only work with what they have available but I do agree with Rowan, if theres known issues then they should be highlighted.

If I had realised what unpleasant finds I got with this kit I would have steered clear, nothing unsurmountable bu non the less, bad moulding and finish of parts etc never mind dimensional issues would have been good to know about in advance.

Sorry if this appears negative but I dont wish Aeroscale to implode like another well known site has recently.

Keith

Folks,
O.K. I've only just returned from a 10 day break in contact however, after sleeping on my initial reaction of "not my place to pitch in on this one!" I beleive I need to support Keith's comment. I too am a member (admittedly not a great participant) of several other sites and can read between the lines on "implosions".
The reason, as I have often stated openly to all here, that I truly enjoy this site far more then the others is the spirit of support, respect, and genuine friendship I see here every time I log on. All or some of those qualities are often trampled on or just absent on the other venues.I would be significantly saddened should we ever sink into that mudhole!
Having said that there will always be differences in opinion or conclusions drawn from the "record" and we can learn much from them. The issue is how we deal with them. IMHO healthy opposition is good as long as the three forementioned qualities are maintained in the process.
Thank you to every member of this truly unique little community for consistently making my day much better and teaching me so much about a hobby I enjoy tremendously; let's be real careful of losing that quality.
Cheers (and respectfully)
Lance

Hi Guys
Another issue I notice with this kit is that Roden have made a hash of the markings on N5493, Robert Little's mount. I can't see it on the decal sheet pics and it seems they have left out Little's nickname for N5493 , which was of course "Blymp", named after his nickname for his young son. Furthermore the red heart shown on the rudder were markings belonging to the next pilot who flew N5493 (name escapes me). Luckily the Pheon decal set has the correct markings for Little's N5493. I'm surprised this wasn't picked up by this normally knowledgeable reviewer.

Thanks Mr. Eddy,

Even after a year this thread has some life. Good corrections are always a welcome. Please don't be a stranger. Mr Eddy is a well known devotee to the genre. I kind of hope contributes some kit reviews here.

Glad I could be of some little assistance Mr. Lawson (is that a pun? Oops) I think you guys do a great job. Haven't been building much of late due to a few reasons so don't have much to say regarding reviews. I did buy my first Wingnut Wings kits recently and my jaw is still on the ground regarding their quality. Once I revisit my currently rusty modelling skills I'll give them a go. I have the Hansa Brandenburg W.29 and Roland D VI (Both favourite aircraft of mine)

model on!

Neil