Confused about kit instruction

My guess is that the spats are molded as if fully-extended in flight and a section needs to be removed to show them compressed with the weight of the aircraft on them.

Unfortunately, that's a common issue with aircraft models. In order to be able to display the model with the gear up if desired, most model manufacturers provide landing gear struts and doors that fit the gear bays (and, of course, they are uncompressed when in this state). That, of course, makes them too long when the model is displayed "at rest," sitting on its gear. It would be nice if manufacturers would provide parts to display the model in either in-flight (un-weighted) and at rest (weighted) gear. With most WW-II and later aircraft, all it would require would be a second set of gear doors in the longer or un-weighted state since the wheels and main landing gear struts are not visible. On aircraft where the wheel or part of it such as the Bf-109, Fw-190, P-40, they could provide a lug on the underside of the longer gear doors to attach the wheel to. Then they could make the landing gear struts and primary set of gear doors in the length depicting the aircraft sitting on the gear at rest. I can't believe this approach would add much to the cost of a kit.

-- -- " In walks the village idiot and his face is all aglow; he's been up all night listening to Mohammad's radio" W. Zevon

My home page:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Williams Bros. kits have this option? I seem to recall a couple of sets of landing gear in their B-10 and C-46.

-- John The history of things that didn't happen has never been written. . - - - Henry Kissinger

standing should mean as sitting naturally.

wouldn't bombers need 3 sets? one for full load, empty, and in flight?

displayed on a stand?>

My personal logical guess (is that an oxymoron?) would be that it means standing on its wheels. Why you'd need to remove a section of the spat is a good question since only the the strut inside compresses when standing or landing, not the spats/fairings. Depending on which version of the Stuka you're building, and what time/area it may have been used, you can leave the spats and fairings off if there is a seperate strut assembly inside. I'm not familiar enough with that kit to know what options you may have.

When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return. --Leonardo Da Vinci EAA # 729686 delete .mil.nav to email

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com.com (Disco -- FlyNavy) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mb-m15.aol.com:

I was just gonna ask that question, and then it hit me - if the spat is fixed to the rigid portion of the strut and float free beyond the moving portion, then when the strut is compressed the spat will appear to be lower on the wheel than when it's uncompressed. The spat doesn't need to be compressed, it needs to be lengthened, or the strut shortened, to make the profile look correct.

Or have I been sniffing too much lacquer thinner?

There was a collapsible section of the spat/strut on the Stuka. The spat telescopes into the section bolted to the underside of the wing. A good picture should show you where the 'break' is. On the PZL P.23 there seems to be a bellows partway down the spat that would allow for compression.

Bill Banaszak, MFE

telescopes into the section bolted to the underside of the wing.>

I stand corrected, dejected, rejected. The one hanging in the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago, and all the pics I've seen, appear to have solid fairings--apparently not.

When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return. --Leonardo Da Vinci EAA # 729686 delete .mil.nav to email

Go sit on the Group W bench! If you look closely at the Chicago Stuka, the telescoping section is there. I sometimes wonder why the aerodynamic fairing and it's associatd weight were added to the Stuka LG.

Rick MFE

Disco:

Be warned, that bird hanging in the Museum of Science & Industry in Chicago was dropped some years ago while being cleaned and there was "considerable damage". I would guess they had to re-build the landing gear and what you see is not necessarily original or accurate.

Bill Shuey

The Styka and I guess other planes with "Spats" have a lower part that slides up into the upper part. That way, no matter how heavy it is the wheel will always be the same distance from the lower edge of the spats/fairings. They ar often fixed to the axle, so when weight is put on the spats will compress with the oleo shock absorber inside.

Maybe because streamlining was the thing in the 30's....

Ron wrote in reply to:

The following:

That is as good a answer as any.

Rick

The fairings probably added a few mph to the airplane, but Stukas were so godawful slow compared with late-war fighters that a little extra speed meant nothing, and the spats tended to clog with mud and stuff in wet weather operation, so it's not surprising a lot of Stukas flew without them.

Mark Schynert

Hey Ox, why you sending him over to sit with the - gasp!! - father-rapers, right there on the Group W bench.

Bill Banaszak, MFE

telescoping section is there.>>

Not sure what the "Group W bench" might be, but ok, probably where I belong on this one. What I usually do at airshows and museums is shoot pics and take notes, then study them later; when wifey and I were up there last year I shot full rolls of the Stuka and the Spit, but they somehow never made it home. Sounds like a good excuse to go back, huh? We're going back to the Oshkosh museum too, but not sure when, this fall or next spring.

When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return. --Leonardo Da Vinci EAA # 729686 delete .mil.nav to email

As a follow on question to this thread, does anyone know for sure, is the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry's Stuka a B or an R? Disco says they call it a B. Since it was captured in North Africa I always assumed it was an R. Oh well, been wrong before! Until the time it was dropped and damaged, it was one of the few former Luftwaffe Aircraft still in it's original Desert Camouflage. What's been done as part of the repairs I can't say.

Bill Shuey

disco commented:

If you get the chance try Arlo Guthrie, "Alice's Restaurant" for a full description of the "Group W" bench.

Rick MFE Maybe "Alice's Restaurant" reference now certifies me as OFE?