Nice work on a very old kit - I built that kit (very badly!) as a young lad fifty-odd years ago, but yours is more what the people at Airfix had in mind, I think! I saw the real thing last week, at the RAF museum, Hendon, in London. It's actually quite an impressive machine "in the flesh", as it were. Again, nice job, well done!
Thank you! I think they must have new tooled this since then. The molding was very clean, and it looked very up to date. I've built some of the classic airfix kits, and they have their own. . . shall I say nostalgic charm. . . but the new kits they've been producing are superb! You should give it a shot again and let me know how it comes out!
You are right when you are saying that this aircraft had design features that were rather strange . The gun mount was actually known as the "Strange mount ", named after the designer Capt. L.A.Strange . Squadron have a nice little book about the BE 2 family in their "in action" series . I have buildt this kit and it is very nice . I hope they will do other versiones of the BE 2 family as well .
If I remember correctly, that gun mount on the Be2c specifically was described as "decorative." In fact, I've got some reference photos that I'm using for the next build, and it looks like the pilot would have to duck and have the observer fire directly over his head in order to use the gun! That's actually part of the inspiration for that next build. . .
I can't wait to see the Viking longship. I was just thinking that I would like to build one. In the meantime I've just started building the Airfix 1/130th scae Cutty Sark. Mine is from around 1974 and has been in my father's wardrobe since then. I figured it's about time it got made since my mother is always going on about it and her health is not great these days.
@@professorbellbuilds It's a challenging build, but hopefully will look good in the end. It's the first sailing ship I've built and the instructions are tricky. A few broken parts but nothing too difficult to fix.
Marvelous video! I'm a bit sorry I slept through two of your history lectures now! I'll try to make up for it by watching ALL your vids! Concerning the papers due last August? They got caught in prop wash.
I actually have a strict no late work policy, but since you plan to watch all of the videos, I suppose I'll let it slide. As for sleeping in class, I get it. I have a rich sonorous voice. It's a good thing I don't teach Astronomy!
There was a BBC TV show in the 1980s called 'Wings' that was about a Be2 squadron. They made 2 series of it. The second one wasn't great because they went "Biggles Plus" with it, but the first series was pretty hard-hitting in places, telling the stories of airmen flying this plane who knew they'd be dead in a few weeks because it simply wasn't capable of defending itself. It's worth a watch if you find it, as long as you ignore the preposterous second series.
That sounds good, and I am a biggles fan, so maybe I won't even mind season 2! It's funny, my experience with "Wings" was a 1990's sitcom about some dudes who ran a small airport. I'm convinced that even season 2 of the BBC'c wings would be better than that! As for defending themselves, there's one exception that I really want to represent from the AFC fighting in Egypt. . . hopefully I'll be able to slap that together soon!
Sweet! Grand job, Prof! The decals put me off getting this boxing. Unfortunately, I had a bad experience with the fuselage diagonals on the Eindecker. No matter how hard I tried I couldn't align the buggers! lol Should have painted them on. Any road, my late cat Captain Smudgekin-Oddsocks shot down the Eindecker and put it out of my misery! 😂 I had previously build the Revell 1/72 kit so I wasn't too upset. The Revell pilot is so naff that it looks like a Minion, so I painted him as such! 😂
I could definitely see a minion piloting an eindecker! Let me also applaud you on your cant-naming skills. As for the eindecker diagonals, I just figured they weren't supposed to line up. . .
The Airfix Sopwith Pup was a lovely little model, and that came with a set of jigs to get the wing stagger correct. Wish they'd re-release that. And the Avro 504K, too.
I'm just building one these, I'm really enjoying the build. But I truly wish that the British aircraft had less rigging. The rigging diagram is not totally clear, so I have been studying photographs. I decided to glue the thread straight to the struts, usually I have drilled small holes on the wings. I I'm not entirely satisfied with my execution of those double cables that run parallel to each other, in my next build I try to get them closer. Now the gap is too wide. The problem with reference photos is that certain angles are never clearly visible, as the aircraft is usually nose up on the floor, or like in this case hanging from the ceiling. There are also cables running from the front cabane and wing struts to the nose, and one of them runs through the engine or the exhaust. I have three more of these in the stash, one is the first boxing, Zeppelin on the cover. Once you get the rigging approximately right, it's much easier to use the built kit as a reference, than to decipher a diagram or a photograph. You mentioned in some comment that you are working on a Flying Tigers P-40, is it the the Airfix one? I did one as an AVG aircraft last year, nice kit, goes together easily. But a bit basic, the Special Hobby P-40 E, K, M and N kits are more detailed, very good fit also, highly recommended.
alas, my p-40 is the $5 academy one. I'm guessing it's the most basic of them all. However I'm attempting to upgrade it with common things I've got laying around.
At the start of WW1, neither the Brits, Germans nor French considered that aircraft would have any role beyond reconnaissance so the Be2c was perfect and especially given the lack of experienced pilots and the growing need for more that could be trained quickly. The crime was allowing the aircraft to soldier on far too long once the air war moved to the next phase.
I did fall for the click bait title! ;) Airfix seems to have discovered the whole 'classic' kit interest and is marketing these old kits well, and people ARE buying them (even when there are better and more accurate modern kits available). I come under this category. I remember - fondly - this being one of my first kit (part of AIrfix's 'Dog Fight Doubles'?) and I've no doubt I made a dog's dinner of it AND didn't paint it! Whether it's a good looking aircraft or not it was an important one, one of the lack-luster RFC aircraft that got us through the first half of the Great War until better ones came along. Ironically, it's these 'classic' kits that I'm now interested in going back and making instead of brand new 'sexy' kits! If anything I'd argue that moden model makers have it TOO EASY (I'll get flamed for this) with a plethora of excellent kits that go together well and that are VERY detailed and authentic... The painting is almost the last bastion of a model making challenge! These oldies were always a challenge and if you managed to make one of these look good, you knew you were a good modeller!!! ;) That's my two cents. Excellent video, thank yu.
It was click baity wasn't it. . . I agree that we are spoiled with many of these new kits, and alas this is a new tool, and it is very easy and very fun! It also just occurred to me: did Biggles ever fly a Be2c?
Short answer: I used some infini models rigging material and superglue. It's black lycra, so it's stretchy and fairly easy to work with if you have good tweezers. I think it was meant for rigging ship models, but it comes in all sorts of sizes and it works just fine for planes too. Long answer: I've got three methods that I use for rigging planes each with their own advantages and disadvantages. I'm planning on making a video in the not too distant future where I go over them. (I guess my long answer was shorter than my short answer!)
Very nice job and great presentation. One quibble, if I may, as a Commonwealth member myself (Canadian) and since this is a British aircraft, decals should be pronounced Dehkulls not DeeKals. All the best and cheers! ;-P
Being a fellow Canadian, I have no qualms in calling out B.S. We've all heard it pronounced both ways, plus others, yet the meaning remains clear. I'll bet he pronounces aluminum the same as we Canucks, ie: "incorrectly".......BTW, how do you pronounce pedantic? 🤔?? .......hmmm, maybe I'm a pedant now too. lol.
To be fair to the Royal Aircraft Factory they designed an aircraft to fit the role it was intended for. The aircraft needed to be flown hands free so the pilot could make notes on what he was seeing for reporting back to headquarters. It was assumed the aircraft would be flown without a dedicated observer in many cases. Unfortunately, as is often the way a combination of static warfare and changes in technology meant it became quickly outmoded. That it lasted so long in service, examples still being lost in early 1917 IIRC, reflects perhaps more on the thinking of the RFC than the aircraft in my opinion. Stability was still highly regarded, by the British at least, for reconnaissance aircraft, pace the R.E. 8. I have the "dogfight double" version of the kit which includes the markings for an aircraft in which the brother of T.E. Lawrence lost his life as an observer, though this is not mentioned in the instructions and it has those strange powder blue cockades....must get around to building it one day. Very nice model and video, thank you 🙂
@@marktuffield6519 I don't blame the RAF or RFC for the initial design, but I do think it was misguided to persist with it, especially when private firms were producing objectively more suitable aircraft. I might have to get me one of those dogfight doubles too.
Weeelll... the aero-plane is actually the mathematical surface that provides lift at certain speed, but that's not what you meant... In WWI, these machines were 'fighting machines', 'battle-planes', and 'scouts', but these are roles, not the type of vehicle. 'Aircraft' as opposed to 'watercraft' or 'hovercraft' for example, is maybe what is needed.
Nice work on a very old kit - I built that kit (very badly!) as a young lad fifty-odd years ago, but yours is more what the people at Airfix had in mind, I think! I saw the real thing last week, at the RAF museum, Hendon, in London. It's actually quite an impressive machine "in the flesh", as it were. Again, nice job, well done!
Thank you! I think they must have new tooled this since then. The molding was very clean, and it looked very up to date. I've built some of the classic airfix kits, and they have their own. . . shall I say nostalgic charm. . . but the new kits they've been producing are superb! You should give it a shot again and let me know how it comes out!
Its not an old kit, this tool is from 2016
I think he's confusing the newish BE2c with the RE8 - an oldie, but a goodie.
@@brianartillery They should make a new tool RE8.
@@professorbellbuilds - Oh, hell yes. I'd love that.
You are right when you are saying that this aircraft had design features that were rather strange . The gun mount was actually known as the "Strange mount ", named after the designer Capt. L.A.Strange .
Squadron have a nice little book about the BE 2 family in their "in action" series .
I have buildt this kit and it is very nice . I hope they will do other versiones of the BE 2 family as well .
If I remember correctly, that gun mount on the Be2c specifically was described as "decorative." In fact, I've got some reference photos that I'm using for the next build, and it looks like the pilot would have to duck and have the observer fire directly over his head in order to use the gun! That's actually part of the inspiration for that next build. . .
I can't wait to see the Viking longship. I was just thinking that I would like to build one. In the meantime I've just started building the Airfix 1/130th scae Cutty Sark. Mine is from around 1974 and has been in my father's wardrobe since then. I figured it's about time it got made since my mother is always going on about it and her health is not great these days.
Certainly I wish you the best of luck with it! It sounds like a meaningful build for you. I'd love to hear how it comes out!
@@professorbellbuilds It's a challenging build, but hopefully will look good in the end. It's the first sailing ship I've built and the instructions are tricky. A few broken parts but nothing too difficult to fix.
Marvelous video! I'm a bit sorry I slept through two of your history lectures now! I'll try to make up for it by watching ALL your vids! Concerning the papers due last August? They got caught in prop wash.
I actually have a strict no late work policy, but since you plan to watch all of the videos, I suppose I'll let it slide. As for sleeping in class, I get it. I have a rich sonorous voice. It's a good thing I don't teach Astronomy!
@@professorbellbuilds Do please keep the vids coming. Very worthwhile.
There was a BBC TV show in the 1980s called 'Wings' that was about a Be2 squadron. They made 2 series of it. The second one wasn't great because they went "Biggles Plus" with it, but the first series was pretty hard-hitting in places, telling the stories of airmen flying this plane who knew they'd be dead in a few weeks because it simply wasn't capable of defending itself. It's worth a watch if you find it, as long as you ignore the preposterous second series.
That sounds good, and I am a biggles fan, so maybe I won't even mind season 2! It's funny, my experience with "Wings" was a 1990's sitcom about some dudes who ran a small airport. I'm convinced that even season 2 of the BBC'c wings would be better than that! As for defending themselves, there's one exception that I really want to represent from the AFC fighting in Egypt. . . hopefully I'll be able to slap that together soon!
Sweet! Grand job, Prof!
The decals put me off getting this boxing. Unfortunately, I had a bad experience with the fuselage diagonals on the Eindecker.
No matter how hard I tried I couldn't align the buggers! lol
Should have painted them on.
Any road, my late cat Captain Smudgekin-Oddsocks shot down the Eindecker and put it out of my misery! 😂
I had previously build the Revell 1/72 kit so I wasn't too upset.
The Revell pilot is so naff that it looks like a Minion, so I painted him as such! 😂
I could definitely see a minion piloting an eindecker! Let me also applaud you on your cant-naming skills. As for the eindecker diagonals, I just figured they weren't supposed to line up. . .
The Airfix Sopwith Pup was a lovely little model, and that came with a set of jigs to get the wing stagger correct. Wish they'd re-release that. And the Avro 504K, too.
Was the pup 1/72?
@@professorbellbuilds - Yes. A beautiful little thing. A late entry to the Airfix WW1 range. (Series 1, new in 1973.)
I have this kit, so this recommendation was helpful. It just moved up the to do list. Thanks.
Glad I could help! You're going to have a great time.
I like your style and humour. I reckon your subscriber count will increase pretty quickly.
Well thank you!
I'm just building one these, I'm really enjoying the build. But I truly wish that the British aircraft had less rigging. The rigging diagram is not totally clear, so I have been studying photographs. I decided to glue the thread straight to the struts, usually I have drilled small holes on the wings. I I'm not entirely satisfied with my execution of those double cables that run parallel to each other, in my next build I try to get them closer. Now the gap is too wide. The problem with reference photos is that certain angles are never clearly visible, as the aircraft is usually nose up on the floor, or like in this case hanging from the ceiling. There are also cables running from the front cabane and wing struts to the nose, and one of them runs through the engine or the exhaust. I have three more of these in the stash, one is the first boxing, Zeppelin on the cover. Once you get the rigging approximately right, it's much easier to use the built kit as a reference, than to decipher a diagram or a photograph. You mentioned in some comment that you are working on a Flying Tigers P-40, is it the the Airfix one? I did one as an AVG aircraft last year, nice kit, goes together easily. But a bit basic, the Special Hobby P-40 E, K, M and N kits are more detailed, very good fit also, highly recommended.
alas, my p-40 is the $5 academy one. I'm guessing it's the most basic of them all. However I'm attempting to upgrade it with common things I've got laying around.
At the start of WW1, neither the Brits, Germans nor French considered that aircraft would have any role beyond reconnaissance so the Be2c was perfect and especially given the lack of experienced pilots and the growing need for more that could be trained quickly. The crime was allowing the aircraft to soldier on far too long once the air war moved to the next phase.
I don't know that I'd say "perfect", but if by that you meant "well suited to reconnaissance" then we're agreed.
@@professorbellbuilds Yup, given what else was available, which wasn't all that much! 3500 plus built by the end of the war.
I did fall for the click bait title! ;) Airfix seems to have discovered the whole 'classic' kit interest and is marketing these old kits well, and people ARE buying them (even when there are better and more accurate modern kits available). I come under this category. I remember - fondly - this being one of my first kit (part of AIrfix's 'Dog Fight Doubles'?) and I've no doubt I made a dog's dinner of it AND didn't paint it! Whether it's a good looking aircraft or not it was an important one, one of the lack-luster RFC aircraft that got us through the first half of the Great War until better ones came along. Ironically, it's these 'classic' kits that I'm now interested in going back and making instead of brand new 'sexy' kits! If anything I'd argue that moden model makers have it TOO EASY (I'll get flamed for this) with a plethora of excellent kits that go together well and that are VERY detailed and authentic... The painting is almost the last bastion of a model making challenge! These oldies were always a challenge and if you managed to make one of these look good, you knew you were a good modeller!!! ;) That's my two cents. Excellent video, thank yu.
It was click baity wasn't it. . . I agree that we are spoiled with many of these new kits, and alas this is a new tool, and it is very easy and very fun! It also just occurred to me: did Biggles ever fly a Be2c?
How did you rig the kit my friend? I know how I do mine but wondered how you did this one? It looks great by teh eay and i may have to get this now.👍👍
Short answer: I used some infini models rigging material and superglue. It's black lycra, so it's stretchy and fairly easy to work with if you have good tweezers. I think it was meant for rigging ship models, but it comes in all sorts of sizes and it works just fine for planes too. Long answer: I've got three methods that I use for rigging planes each with their own advantages and disadvantages. I'm planning on making a video in the not too distant future where I go over them. (I guess my long answer was shorter than my short answer!)
@@professorbellbuilds 🤣🤣Thanks for both answers.👍😉
I have been following! Forget the job...
good advice!
A very nice model.
Thank you!
Having now decided on scratchbuilding a foamboard r/c version BE2c, I shall tell the memsahib it's all your fault! : )
I take full responsibility!
Very nice job and great presentation. One quibble, if I may, as a Commonwealth member myself (Canadian) and since this is a British aircraft, decals should be pronounced Dehkulls not DeeKals. All the best and cheers! ;-P
Being a fellow Canadian, I have no qualms in calling out B.S. We've all heard it pronounced both ways, plus others, yet the meaning remains clear.
I'll bet he pronounces aluminum the same as we Canucks, ie: "incorrectly".......BTW, how do you pronounce pedantic? 🤔??
.......hmmm, maybe I'm a pedant now too. lol.
Oh, of course! Next you're going to want me to pronounce it "HHHHHHHHerbs" instead of 'erbs, or "zed" instead of "zee" 😉
Strictly speaking old boy they are "waterslide transfers" 😊
To be fair to the Royal Aircraft Factory they designed an aircraft to fit the role it was intended for. The aircraft needed to be flown hands free so the pilot could make notes on what he was seeing for reporting back to headquarters. It was assumed the aircraft would be flown without a dedicated observer in many cases. Unfortunately, as is often the way a combination of static warfare and changes in technology meant it became quickly outmoded. That it lasted so long in service, examples still being lost in early 1917 IIRC, reflects perhaps more on the thinking of the RFC than the aircraft in my opinion. Stability was still highly regarded, by the British at least, for reconnaissance aircraft, pace the R.E. 8. I have the "dogfight double" version of the kit which includes the markings for an aircraft in which the brother of T.E. Lawrence lost his life as an observer, though this is not mentioned in the instructions and it has those strange powder blue cockades....must get around to building it one day. Very nice model and video, thank you 🙂
@@marktuffield6519 I don't blame the RAF or RFC for the initial design, but I do think it was misguided to persist with it, especially when private firms were producing objectively more suitable aircraft. I might have to get me one of those dogfight doubles too.
I made one of those but it is not as good as yours.
Oh, I don't know. We are our own worst critics!
Its an AEROPLANE, not an airplane.
Oh, no! Next you're going to tell me that I'm spelling color wrong!
Weeelll... the aero-plane is actually the mathematical surface that provides lift at certain speed, but that's not what you meant...
In WWI, these machines were 'fighting machines', 'battle-planes', and 'scouts', but these are roles, not the type of vehicle.
'Aircraft' as opposed to 'watercraft' or 'hovercraft' for example, is maybe what is needed.