Is there a general, no frills 1/48 Ju-88 out there?

Seems that Dragon has the only 88s in production and they are all specialty versions, anti balloon, tank buster, etc.
was a "regular" Ju 88 ever made or are the Dragon kits all there is to
work with? If so I'll probably go with the tank buster...
thx - Craig
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net wrote:

Define "regular"...I have a DML Ju 88G-1 the looks sort of "regular".
--
- Rufus

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net wrote:

Craig
Revell/Monogram ( as a Promodeler) once released a Ju 88 A-4 which itself was based on the Dragon/DML kit. It still can be found on Ebay and at swap meets. Also DML has released and I think Rereleased a C-6 version of the Ju 88. But be aware that while all of these kits look very good in the box, it takes some work to get results that will be very pleasing. Dry fitting, filling and sanding will bocome old friends. One thing to also remember is DML started out with molds to do the basic version and with the intent to do Ju 188's, the stretched fuselage version,etc. so fit will always be somewhat of a problem. I don;t know what can be built out of every boxing, but I suspect there are lots of options.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net wrote:

Revell-Monogram did a 1/48th scale Ju-88A-4 as part of their ProModeler series; here's a couple of reviews of it: http://www.modelingmadness.com/reviews/axis/luft/miesleju88.htm http://www.modelingmadness.com/reviews/axis/luft/grenvilleju88.htm
Pat
Pat
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pat Flannery wrote:

Was that a new kit, or a reboxed DML? Nice looking, in any event.
--
- Rufus

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rufus wrote:

Reboxed DML. If you read the reviews of it, the fit was nothing to get excited about, as MQM107 pointed out. This surprised me (I never built one) as the ProModeler He-111 from DML molds had excellent fit, as well as a really outstanding canopy on it that has almost no optical distortion, meaning it's really worth your time to detail the cockpit, as in this model you can actually get a good look at it.
Pat
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pat Flannery wrote:

I got one of those 111's waiting...
...I got my DML Ju 88 off a discount table for $10 some years ago, as I recall. I wasn't really looking for one, but for $10 I couldn't just leave it there.
--
- Rufus

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rufus wrote:t.

Really nice model. Did you get the bomber version or the V-1 carrier? One thing you really notice with one in that scale is how small the engines are in relation to the aircraft; it looks like a power-assisted glider of some sort. You can see why Heinkel made it so streamlined; they had to to get any sort of reasonable performance using that few horsepower. As I said, it's well worth detailing the cockpit, as it's quite visible when finished.
Pat
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pat Flannery wrote:

Actually, I think mine is the original release torpedo bomber...and it's one of the few models I have that I may finish per the box scheme - I really like those white nacelles.
Yeah, that's a big wing alright. It's a graceful looking shape though, like a Hawker Hunter. I think I've managed to collect all of the Eduard etch for it, as per my usual...I may not have the bomb bay set. Can't mount the torps with the bay doors open - for an etch-junkie like me that's a real dilemma...
--
- Rufus

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rufus wrote:

It also comes with a pair of heavy bombs if you want to use them instead of the torpedoes.

Heinkel really got stuck on that wing shape. Although it looks great and is no doubt very aerodynamic, it must have been very difficult to build due to its complex shape. For starters, it has a inverted gull wing shape to it, but it's so minor in the way that the wing sweeps up from the engine nacelle that you can't really picture it having any aerodynamic effect, while still making the wing's structure more complex. At least it was a improvement construction-wise over the wing the early model He-111 with its curved leading edge. My favorite is still the He-112 fighter, which looks like he was designing a racing plane rather than a fighter:
http://wmilitary.neurok.ru/wwii/he112-d.gif
The Japanese bought a few of those, and their pilots were appalled by the high wing loading on them. Either that wing is too small, or that horizontal stabilizer is too big, but something is very wrong there. :-)

Especially considering how odd the bomb bay would look with the vertical bomb cells. Maybe you could build the bomb bay atop the alternate underside panel without the underbelly ordinance shackles and figure out some way the two could be swapped as desired?
Pat
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pat Flannery wrote:

I always figured the only real reason for using an inverted gull wing on an aircraft was to allow the use of shorter, stiffer landing gear legs. I've got a hardbound book on "German Aircraft Landing Gear", but I haven't opened it in some years, so I'm not up on the state of the tech at Heinkel at the time. I guess it also allows some additional design features for dihedral and lateral stability, but yeah, I'd think overall it would be a heavier design and maybe it was that heavier structure in the carry-through that allowed the gear to function at the shock rates they were capable of being built to at the time...but that's speculation.
I could see that 112 being very sensitive in pitch looking at that stab, and yeah - you could snatch on the G way too fast; short wing, high loading = fast airplane and the ability to over-control it. I seem to recall a read where the optimum stick force per G has been determined to be about 8-12 pounds/G, and that the P-51 was the first combat aircraft to get that incorporated into it's design, or one of the first.

I think the vertical bomb bay is an interesting oddity, that's why I'm in a quandary about how to build my kit...which means I'll probably end up buying another one and building two. It is a nice kit, and the one that got me to venture off just collecting German jets in 1/48.
--
- Rufus

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rufus wrote:

And in the He-111 the wing goes out from the fuselage horizontally till it reaches the nacelles, then angles up, so you aren't saving any landing gear length.

The 112 looks like it's going to use up a lot of runway on takeoff, but it's that huge horizontal stabilizer that really throws me. Maybe they thought it was going to need a lot of control authority if it stalled, which it looks like could be a fairly common occurrence given the small wing, particularly if you got into a maneuvering dogfight. The aircraft looks like it's designed for speed first and foremost, with maneuverability and pleasant handling taking a back seat.

I'm trying to remember how exactly that worked... did each bomb cell have a individual door or doors on it?

That's gong to be a fairly limited collection if you only stick to operational ones, or advanced versions of ones that were built. I went with 1/72 scale ones of all the designs, and there are _way_ too many kits of those out there. I've got ones I don't even remember the correct designations of anymore. :-)
Pat
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pat Flannery wrote:

Yeah, I'm thinking of the most glaring examples like the Stuka and Corsair.

Yeah, that's about my take on it - bank and yank. It took me a while to figure out why roll rate is so important, but once I did it makes sense...but what you've got with the 112 looks like how you get GLOC...

Two big doors like on a B-17, but individual chutes for the bombs.

Heh...that's what I'm intentionally trying to do by building in 1/32 - limit myself. My evil plan was to build WWII subjects in 1/48 and jets exclusively in 1/32, but there's been so many nice 1/32 WWII subjects coming out of late that it's become a lost cause...
--
- Rufus

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rufus wrote:

On the He-112 there is a true inverted gull wing. Something like that would have looked really wild on the He-111. As far as the He-111 goes, I thought the way I described it above was how it worked, and in looking at 3-views in my books with He-111s in them, in some drawings it does. In other drawings it looks like it starts slanting upward immediately after leaving the sides of the fuselage, and increases its angle at the nacelles; in still others it starts going up halfway from the fuselage to the nacelle, and stays at that angle all the way to the tip. At best it doesn't decrease the gear length, and may well demand slightly longer gear struts. Considering that some of these aircraft still exist, you would think this could be pinned down. They did indeed get rid of the curved leading edge to simplify construction, and also deleted the dread surface evaporation cooling system mounted outside the nacelles on the underside of the wing's leading edge. This was of course going to return on the He-177 with equally poor results, and get dropped from its design also. They were going to stick it on the He-100, but again it just didn't work. I think Heinkel got way too hung up on streamlining as a means of upping performance a bit (right until the He-177 arrived...which looked like wings and a tail grafted onto a 4" x 4" piece of lumber) no matter what the cost in complexity or man-hours for construction. By the time he figured that out with the He-100 it was too late - and* *Messerschmitt had a lock on fighter production. I read an interesting article once that argued that the Japanese Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien "Tony" was almost a exact copy of the He-100, and particularly in regards to the fuselage they do have a striking resemblance...and the Japanese did purchase three He-100Ds in 1940 for their navy, so I assume that Kawasaki looked them over pretty well. The Soviet MiG-1 and LaGG-3 apparently also copied features from the aircraft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_100

I keep picturing the guys at the factory looking at the framework of the wing, and saying: "Now let me get this straight...you want to put smooth skinning over _that_? Oh, mien Gott." :-D The thing's getting close to being a piston powered version of the Natter as far as wing and tail area are concerned. I'll tell you one thing...if it ever stalls with that big of a tail on it, it's going into a nose dive in no time flat. It would look great chasing a Gee-Bee Super Sportster around at the Thompson Trophy Races though. Sort of aerodynamic finesse meets brute force. :-) About the only thing we had that got that hung up on streamlining was the Hughes H-1 racer.
Pat
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pat Flannery wrote:

If it does stall that's kind of what you want - a rapid lowering of the nose, straight ahead...but you also want the impending stall to warn you that it's coming so that you can take action to relax the AOA before it happens - had that problem with the T-45A initially...the thing stalled so gently that a pilot got no warning of the impending departure until he was in deep stall and fully departed. The basic Hawk doesn't have the issue - it was the alteration of the wing plan form for the T-45 config that did it, and we had to add tripper strips to get it to stall more aggressively.
It was also spec'd to be spinable, but you have to really work to get it to spin. And I mean REALLY work...I never could get the sim to spin, only spiral. The test pilots could do it, but I never could figure out how to do it out from watching them.
--
- Rufus

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rufus wrote:

That is a highly undesirable characteristic in a trainer*. Someone should have spotted that in the wind tunnel test stage.

*Although it has a interesting Darwinian touch to it. This way you can save money by weeding out the trainee pilots that aren't on their toes early in training via attrition or simple pure terror as they pull out of a stall-induced dive at ten feet off the ground... while at the same time encouraging the rest of the trainees to get their wings as quickly as possible, so they can move onto something safe, like a FA-18. :-) Were you around in the old Buckeye days? I've never had a chance to talk to a pilot of one of those, (oddly enough, in North Dakota we don't get many Navy aircraft) how did they handle?
Pat
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pat Flannery wrote:

The problem with wind tunnels and computational aero is that neither of them do a very good job of predicting dynamic behavior - that's why there'll always be flight test...and that's where this trait was discovered, in advance of Fleet intro. By the time the jet got to the ramp the trippers were fairly well configured.

I did manage to get the T-45 sim to depart once...but I had to "break it" to do so...recovered at about 1500 AGL...but that's another story...
I was part of the Fleet intro team for the T-45A...and since the sim was standing up and there were no students in the pipeline to put hours on it, I sort of became the local "test-student/test pilot" for the sim folks. I spent an average of a couple hours a week flying the sim, and giving them feedback on the flight model updates, but tried not to become proficient enough at any one task to more than "student proficient". I do have to say that of all the military jet sims I've flown, the T-45A was the most tasking...but any Cessna pilot could still fly the jet, IMO. Since I didn't have much armament to play with, I spent most of my time shooting carrier approaches and landings...got pretty good at them, considering I was just spotting the deck without a velocity vector. In fact, I was better at hitting the boat tan I was at hitting the FCLP spot ashore...scarred the crap out of me to try it at night though, even in the sim. I always diverted to shore and did night bounces whenever they turned the sun off on me...hey, I can dial up a TACAN even after dark.
VT-21 was standing up with the T-45 (they were the first), the initial IP Cadre had six T-45s when I left. There were still T-2s and TA-4s around and operating...and VT-21 was actually considering qualling me in the jet, seeing as I was getting so much sim time, was already a licensed civilian pilot, and knew more than they did about the jet from an engineering standpoint and might have been a help to them in the air. But I got another opportunity and moved on before that could happen.
I did manage to see a guy shell out of a T-2 on about a 1/4 mile final at 1200 AGL during a single engine emergency...turned out he secured the good engine on approach and just shelled. I was later told that you don't want to actually give students the option to eject too early in the training program - he could have made the runway dead-stick from where he was...man, talk about a fireball...
I also took a student out to dinner that had DOR'd for having "no apparent fear of death", as he put it. He had been doing well through T-2's, but his first trip to the boat in the TA-4 scared the snot out of him because of the added speed, and his attention in the cockpit had begun to wander - particularly in the landing pattern...he'd break and just start a spiral into the ground and the IPs were having to snatch the jet from him. Some of the other students that knew me suggested that I talk to him about civilian careers in Naval aviation, seeing as I had one and he didn't want to completely separate from the Navy...so I joined him and his wife for dinner one night, and we had some conversation. They were a nice young couple...I hope things worked out for them.
I had to watch out while I was working with the Training Command...word got around pretty quick that I had some gouge, and I was always careful not to spend much time with the students lest I interfered with their instruction - I was there to instruct the Instructors, not the students.
--
- Rufus

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pat typed:

Perhaps the reson lies in the 111's start as a commercial type. The DC-3 had a similar wing formation.
Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mad-Modeller wrote:

True, I hadn't thought of that, but I can't see any reason why a commercial plane would need it either if a military one didn't Upswept outer wings seemed to be fairly common on 1930's designs, I don't know it it's stability related or has something to do with preventing the wingtips from hitting the ground during bad weather take-offs and landings or colliding with underbrush on poor grass strips. Now this, on the other hand is just asking for a wingtip to hit the ground: http://www.airbornegrafix.com/HistoricAircraft/Prototypes/Brabazon.htm Did any major model company ever do a model of that?
Pat
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pat Flannery wrote:

I think it goes back to how they could do the math for the structural design at the time - it was probably easier to design a straight (flat) load bearing carry-though, but they still needed the outer panels angled for some lateral stability. If you've ever seen a T-6 wing disassembled into it's three component sections it's also similarly constructed.
When I was as GE there were guys there that had been around long enough to remember doing calculations using real splines and spline weights - some of them still had spline weights sitting on their desks as souvenirs of the old days...not to mention slide rules.
It's hard even for a pre-PC, mainframe kiddie like me to imagine doing computational fluid dynamics or structural analysis using sticks, weights, and slide rules, but that's how it was done before computers...and where modern computational spline function mechanics hails from.
--
- Rufus

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.