D III or UFAG??????

[bmwrider]

I am sure you folks will know the answer to this one.
I was looking up the older planes to learn about the WOW stuff and keep finding an albatros diii in red with two arcs and a base that reads ufag c1, why does this come up in so many of my searches?
http://www.miniaturetrading.com/im/s...card_id/175711
And this is just one result, if you search google images you will find a red albratros d iii with a 2 seater base, was this just one messed up picture that was used on many sites?

[bmwrider]

This is the google image result
https://www.google.com/search?q=Wing...w=1366&bih=600

[Flying Helmut]

Yes, that image is a mistake - a single seater plane mounted on a two-seater base!

[Diamondback]

Maybe Herr Brumowski had just a LITTLE too much sauerkraut before going up that day and the toxic cloud of flatulence in his wake was unbreathable to man and machine alike? LOL

[Boney10]

Tim has the right of it, plane is an Albatross on the wrong base, mind you after a number of years eating Compo rations in BAOR I can understand where DB is coming from

[Diamondback]

Yeah, who needs a rear gunner if you can unleash Fartpocalypse? Would give "Crop Dusting" a whole new meaning...

[bmwrider]

Yeah I figured it was the wrong base.
FF must have had it their site at one point and that would explain why so many other sites are using the messed up photo.

[csadn]

Yeah, who needs a rear gunner if you can unleash Fartpocalypse? Would give "Crop Dusting" a whole new meaning...

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Fartillery

[greenalfonzo]

Your title and the pic of the Brumowski made me think you might have been referring to the D.III (Oeffag/OAW), which is the Austrian version of the Albatros. After a couple straight copies, the Austrians basically re-engineered the D.III, strengthening it and giving it more power. The later versions dropped the spinner, and ultimately redesigned the entire nose to improve the aerodynamics. Shouldn't Brumowski's plane be the Austrian version? I wish Ares would do a new mold for the Austrians, and give it improved stats as well.

[Ken at Sunrise]

That image is on this website too in the thread: General overview of released minis - WWI
http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...l=1#post203327

[Ken at Sunrise]

The Albatross D.III and Ufag C.I are reversed?

Airplane Pack # 3

Albatross D.III - J, A , 14, 4, 11



Ufag C.I - H, B/B, 16, 4, 11 (twoseater)

[Baxter]

i think that photo shoot was done by PricewaterhouseCoopers

[gully_raker]

The Albatross D.III and Ufag C.I are reversed?

Correct! The bases have been swapped for the photo.

[tikkifriend]

But how much are they asking for this wonderous Alb D III? £££££££££££`

[skyking20]

I am sure you folks will know the answer to this one.
I was looking up the older planes to learn about the WOW stuff and keep finding an albatros diii in red with two arcs and a base that reads ufag c1, why does this come up in so many of my searches?
http://www.miniaturetrading.com/im/s...card_id/175711
And this is just one result, if you search google images you will find a red albratros d iii with a 2 seater base, was this just one messed up picture that was used on many sites?

I love that plane. The DIII is one of my favorites!

[Flying Helmut]

I just hope the "reprint" D.IIIs are better proportioned.

The Series 3 ones were too short, too fat, with super-thick struts, and with too large an undercarriage, and with the top wing set too high above the fuselage. Nothing at all like the sleek, shark-like fighter it could, and should, have been.

[surfimp]

The Series 3 ones were too short, too fat, with super-thick struts, and with too large an undercarriage, and with the top wing set too high above the fuselage.

Awww, but they're just so cuuuuuuute!

(I have noticed this, too. But I kind of like it. I know this makes me a Bad Person)

[Jager]

I just hope the "reprint" D.IIIs are better proportioned.

The Series 3 ones were too short, too fat, with super-thick struts, and with too large an undercarriage, and with the top wing set too high above the fuselage. Nothing at all like the sleek, shark-like fighter it could, and should, have been.

Sadly, history says: "don't hold your breath!"
Karl

[gully_raker]

I just hope the "reprint" D.IIIs are better proportioned.

The Series 3 ones were too short, too fat, with super-thick struts, and with too large an undercarriage, and with the top wing set too high above the fuselage. Nothing at all like the sleek, shark-like fighter it could, and should, have been.

Which just goes to prove Ares are not the only ones to have "Mini Problems"

[Bobby D]

I just hope the "reprint" D.IIIs are better proportioned.

The Series 3 ones were too short, too fat, with super-thick struts, and with too large an undercarriage, and with the top wing set too high above the fuselage. Nothing at all like the sleek, shark-like fighter it could, and should, have been.

I'm in total agreement, Tim. IMO all the albatri miniatures issued so far have been god awful. In addition to the above mentioned D.III shortfalls, the Albatros D.V's have been even worse. Oversized struts, long noses, tiny wheels. The only viewing angle that they look halfway accurate from is directly above. I hate to nitpick here because I love the game and all it's available components, but it's a shame that such a historically significant aircraft would be given such a poor treatment when the large majority of other WoW, WoG minis are well designed and nicely manufactured.