Page 3 of 3
Re: So why WWII Single Engine Fighters..?
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2015 6:38 pm
by BlackSheep214
Re: So why WWII Single Engine Fighters..?
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2015 7:22 pm
by gino b2
wide variety, takes up less shelf space, and they just look cool .
gino

Re: So why WWII Single Engine Fighters..?
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2015 2:09 am
by Thomas_M
Gino, a "Langnase" Focke-Wulf looks cool in whatever scale it is done!

Re: So why WWII Single Engine Fighters..?
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2015 2:26 am
by Stuart
gino b2 wrote:wide variety, takes up less shelf space, and they just look cool .
gino

That does indeed look cool!
Re: So why WWII Single Engine Fighters..?
Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2015 8:22 pm
by Medicman71
Guess I'm the odd ball on this one. Not a big fan of WWII SEF. There are a few I like, the P-47 and Hellcat. But I like my jets more.
Re: So why WWII Single Engine Fighters..?
Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2015 5:24 pm
by CallSignOWL
they are quick and easy.
biplanes have all that rigging, bombers are too big, and modern planes have all that junk hangin' off them!
Re: So why WWII Single Engine Fighters..?
Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:10 pm
by KSaarni
It all depends.. It's like periodical...
When I "returned" to this hobby, of my first 10 projects 7 of 10 were 1st of all single engine fighters..
Of those 7, 5 were from WWII and 2 from WWI.
The rest were single engined bombers or rec-planes, however from WWII.
But, if I look at my latest 10 (not taking in consideration if they are finalised or not), then only two planes are from WWII, though both single engine fighters.. All the rest are jets..
- Kari
Re: So why WWII Single Engine Fighters..?
Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2015 1:08 am
by BorgR3mc0
CallSignOWL wrote:they are quick and easy.
biplanes have all that rigging, bombers are too big, and modern planes have all that junk hangin' off them!
Yep, SEF are the Knights of the sky without the rigging.