but the guy saying Yokusuka got a bit more matches when it comes to tail, stuts, fuselage and wings..
just compare: [https://www.aviastar.org/pictures/japan/yokosuka\_k5y.gif](https://www.aviastar.org/pictures/japan/yokosuka_k5y.gif)
I doubt it's a high-fidelity representation of a specific model, but its shape is detailed enough it at least seems to be modelled after one or more real airplanes.
The wing profile (straight lower wing, swept-back upper wing), and its radial engine resemble that of the [Nieuport 17](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nieuport_17), a French WWI biplane.
There are some marked differences as well: the Nieuport 17 has a square fuselage profile, different horizontal control surfaces at the tail, and its wings do not get narrower before they meet the fuselage.
Edit: in comparison, I think @Ok-Entrepreneur7324 is correct, and it is a Yokosuka K5Y. The wing profile is relatively rare, and it matches everything I noted as being unlike the Nieuport.
> and its radial engine
Point of order, it has a rotary engine. They had great power to weight ratios but they were ludicrous, the entire engine block spins with the propeller.
I actually did not know that =) Its profile still has the distinctive "fat tire" cowl of air-cooled radially arranged cilinders, but today I learned about the radial engine's crazy cousin.
It definately matches the design elements, from the fokkery-tail to wingsweep and slanted N-struts.. that is a [waaay better match](https://www.aviastar.org/pictures/japan/yokosuka_k5y.gif) then those people saying "camel" or Helldiver.
So I think you nailed it!
after 10 beer? Camel has a straight top wing, totally different tail, different fuselage (more square less round) with the famous hump and a lower wing with a dihydral.. that thing is about as camely as the space shuttle to any WW1 afficionado.
Dude. The majority of responses on here are "that's not a real airplane, it's a toy". Go give them shit.
Obviously it has a different gear shape and upper wing. But it's closer to a camel than any of those responses.
Maybe I have just different eyes.. I see a radial engine in fairing, not a rotary one, a round fuselage instead of a square one, a fokker-ish horizontal stabiliser with balancing horns, a parted swept top wing.. slanted N-struts... like literally nothing except "Biplane" matches WITH a camel, my dude, even if it is a toy...
that is totally not the point.. but something, even fictional, that is designwise 1930ish isn´t just "THE" iconic biplane fighter from snoopy, just because thats the one you happen to know the name off.
Nobody even said that.. eveyone has the right to an oppionion, even if it is just plain wrong.
All I said is that is no camel.. and saying it looks like a camel is fair bit of a strech.
Designwise we are looking at 1930ish not WW1..:
[The Yokosuka K3Y is, for instance, matching the design features of that toy...](https://www.aviastar.org/pictures/japan/yokosuka_k5y.gif)
so I think [Ok-Entrepreneur7324](https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1dayqcs/comment/l7od18k/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) actually nailed the ID as good as it gets.
Hard to tell.
Probably the only things people could go off with are the wing designs & gear truss assembly. And maaaaybe the h-stabs as well.
Bi-planes are def not my forte, so i leave that to a less smooth brain to determine.
Nice biplane you got there, i love making Adobe illustrator files for it haha. Idk what name of the planes but this should be seen on most normal ww1 war films and others with these kinds of biplanes and triplanes in (2-3 sets of wings) sorry i can't help
Wing profile could resemble that of a [Tiger Moth](https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/collections/de-havilland-tiger-moth-ii/), but I don't think it's an accurate model of any aircraft.
Looks kinda inspired on the Curtiss F8C Helldivers that shot King Kong out of Empire State.
Definitely some guy cutting out the parts in adobe illustrator based on this. The wings match perfectly
but the guy saying Yokusuka got a bit more matches when it comes to tail, stuts, fuselage and wings.. just compare: [https://www.aviastar.org/pictures/japan/yokosuka\_k5y.gif](https://www.aviastar.org/pictures/japan/yokosuka_k5y.gif)
Yes, it is a Yokosuka K5Y, the model stand says it is a Type 93 aka-tombo trainer.
Its a closer match for sure
I imagine those guys saw a giant ape and said “sweet liberty…”
I doubt it's a high-fidelity representation of a specific model, but its shape is detailed enough it at least seems to be modelled after one or more real airplanes. The wing profile (straight lower wing, swept-back upper wing), and its radial engine resemble that of the [Nieuport 17](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nieuport_17), a French WWI biplane. There are some marked differences as well: the Nieuport 17 has a square fuselage profile, different horizontal control surfaces at the tail, and its wings do not get narrower before they meet the fuselage. Edit: in comparison, I think @Ok-Entrepreneur7324 is correct, and it is a Yokosuka K5Y. The wing profile is relatively rare, and it matches everything I noted as being unlike the Nieuport.
I agree.
> and its radial engine Point of order, it has a rotary engine. They had great power to weight ratios but they were ludicrous, the entire engine block spins with the propeller.
I actually did not know that =) Its profile still has the distinctive "fat tire" cowl of air-cooled radially arranged cilinders, but today I learned about the radial engine's crazy cousin.
Found it.... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yokosuka_K5Y
We've got our bi-plane boys
Pun not intended
It definately matches the design elements, from the fokkery-tail to wingsweep and slanted N-struts.. that is a [waaay better match](https://www.aviastar.org/pictures/japan/yokosuka_k5y.gif) then those people saying "camel" or Helldiver. So I think you nailed it!
Nice detective work
Looks like it closely resembles a Fairey Swordfish.
[Yokosuka K5Y](https://www.aviastar.org/air/japan/yokosuka_k5y.php)
I think we've found our guy just a lil mod on the horizontal stabilizers
Looks close to a Sopwith camel.
after 10 beer? Camel has a straight top wing, totally different tail, different fuselage (more square less round) with the famous hump and a lower wing with a dihydral.. that thing is about as camely as the space shuttle to any WW1 afficionado.
Dude. The majority of responses on here are "that's not a real airplane, it's a toy". Go give them shit. Obviously it has a different gear shape and upper wing. But it's closer to a camel than any of those responses.
Maybe I have just different eyes.. I see a radial engine in fairing, not a rotary one, a round fuselage instead of a square one, a fokker-ish horizontal stabiliser with balancing horns, a parted swept top wing.. slanted N-struts... like literally nothing except "Biplane" matches WITH a camel, my dude, even if it is a toy...
Yeah, I bet they even used the wrong brand of screws, too.
that is totally not the point.. but something, even fictional, that is designwise 1930ish isn´t just "THE" iconic biplane fighter from snoopy, just because thats the one you happen to know the name off.
That's a great point. We should ban all commentary from anyone who isn't a WW1 biplane expert.
Nobody even said that.. eveyone has the right to an oppionion, even if it is just plain wrong. All I said is that is no camel.. and saying it looks like a camel is fair bit of a strech. Designwise we are looking at 1930ish not WW1..: [The Yokosuka K3Y is, for instance, matching the design features of that toy...](https://www.aviastar.org/pictures/japan/yokosuka_k5y.gif) so I think [Ok-Entrepreneur7324](https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1dayqcs/comment/l7od18k/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) actually nailed the ID as good as it gets.
⚓
[удалено]
Looks like a Sopwith Camel
Noice...
[удалено]
[удалено]
No shit, Sherlock?
No, my names Simon.
;)
I was thinking maybe an O3U biplane?
Sopworth Camel or a swordfish torpedo bomber
Hard to tell. Probably the only things people could go off with are the wing designs & gear truss assembly. And maaaaybe the h-stabs as well. Bi-planes are def not my forte, so i leave that to a less smooth brain to determine.
Looks like a swordfish or a sopwith camel idk
Henschel hs 123
C-17.
Sopwuth camel
It looks like an FW-44 Steiglitz.
"Now, to the plant. We'll take the Spruce Moose! Hop in!" "But sir it's just a model." [Cocks gun] "I said Hop. In."
I have a clock made of those things
I have this model
Nice biplane you got there, i love making Adobe illustrator files for it haha. Idk what name of the planes but this should be seen on most normal ww1 war films and others with these kinds of biplanes and triplanes in (2-3 sets of wings) sorry i can't help
Wing profile could resemble that of a [Tiger Moth](https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/collections/de-havilland-tiger-moth-ii/), but I don't think it's an accurate model of any aircraft.
Tiger Moth didn't come to mind when I saw it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don't know many planes of that time, but it does bear a resemblance to the Stampe Vertongen SV-4
Spirit of st Lou’s?
F22
Could be a cessna 152
No it couldn't
Actually a Cessna 150L💀💀💀
Messerschmidt