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
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.
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.
Um, Pat, the He 111 kit was never a DML mold. It was an original
Monogram. In fact, IIRC Bill Koster designed the molds.
If you want a cheap, no frills kit, and one that kinda looks like a
Ju 88 you may want to consider Hobbycraft's kit. It ain't the best,
but like I said, it does look like a Ju 88 when finished. This is one
of Hobbycraft's earlier kits, so it may have issues with decals,
flash, fit, etc. That being siad, I've got one in the stash and it
doesn't LOOK too bad, but it's not DML quality either.
Other's have pointed out the main things regarding the Dragon kit.
But as to the normal kit I am not 100% sure though obviously check out the
A-4 version of you can hold of it.
However if not try looking ofr the DML Mistel kits as if I remeber correctly
a few of these versions are also supplied withthe full glazing for the 88 in
case one wants to build a trainer version of the Mistel (I actually fancy
doing one myself).
All the best for the New Year also from a rainy Edinburgh.
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
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...
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:
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
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?
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.
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.
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...
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
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
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.
It sure does bear a resemblance to the He-70 Blitz scaled up to two engines.
Interesting how they felt the need to get the two engines as close to
the centerline as possible.
They're almost cutting into the cockpit glazing, particularly on the
It must have been very noisy in that cockpit with the props that close.
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
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.