Query

Does anybody make 1/700 Fw 190s? I think they'd be better carrier planes than the Bf 109s.
Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr

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

For what ship? The Graf Zeppelin was never completed.
--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But there is a kit available... If you're building a "What if?", you might as well build it as you envisage it might have been. For myself, I've always wondered what a carrier built on an incomplete "Hood" class battlecruiser hull yould have looked like, the way the US utilised "Lexington" and "Saratoga", and the Japanese the "Akagi"...

Cheers,
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Changing the subject a little, but in the same vain, does anyone know if there are any 1/700 Harriers available? I'm doing an updated LHA and all the internet pictures I can find lately show the LHAs and LHDs sporting Harriers as well as Marine helicopters.
T2
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I know the Dragon 1/700 Saipan/Tarawa kit had Harrier IIs included. There is a small sink hole between the wings.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thanks, Gary. I'm working with a DML version of the LHA 1 I bought years ago(when you retire, you get around to these projects). I've made decals changing it to the LHA-2 and added the more recent radars, domes and self defense systems, but I'm not into buying another kit just for the Harriers. Know of any after-market Harriers?
T2

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/22/2011 9:28 PM, Tom wrote:

I'm pretty sure I saw someone offering modern RN aircraft as a separate accessory. I'll have to check my last Squadron flyer and see if they're in there.
Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
https://www.whiteensignmodels.com/c/British+Aircraft/291/1 /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thanks Gary and Bill. Just ordered Harriers and Cobras from "across the pond"
T2

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nertz! All they have for German Attack aircraft are Arado 96 and 196 models. I thought the 96 was a trainer? OTOH, maybe as a communications plane? Hmmmmm....
Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/21/2011 9:36 AM, willshak wrote:> Mad Modeller wrote the following:

they'd be better carrier

Well in 'my' timeline it was and 109s were somewhat picky about their landings. IIRC, Seafires weren't the greatest at landing on ships either. Then too, the ship has to carry replacement coolant for liquid-cooled aircraft. That has been cited as one reason the USN preferred air-cooled radials.
Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mad Modeller wrote the following:

That last statement answered a question I had for decades. Why did all the US Navy planes have radial engines. Thanks.
--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Lower weight - no cooling system, piping, radiator, fluids, etc.
Storage of coolant at sea, 1 more item for the supply chain, plus radiator parts.
Water cooled aircraft much easier to get a complete kill with relatively minor damage - don't have to shoot up a flying surface or hole the engine to put it in the water, just one bullet in the coolant system anywhere.
Radial engines demonstrably could sustain considerable damage and get the pilot home, I've read of whole cylinders shot away and the bird still getting to the nest.
Aircraft survivability good for pilot morale.
All traded against aerodynamic superiority of inline engines. Just build bigger honking radials.
That's the way I understand it.
Think F4U or F6F vs P51.
Consider also that all USAAF bomber, attack and transport aircraft used radials. The Lanc used Merlins, but offhand any other (successful) Brit bombers go with water cooled inlines?
Of all the US types only the P-38, P-39, P-40 and P-51 and only the Mustang was REALLY successful as a dogfighter, the P-38 coming in second. I'm guessing that air cooled radials were just more developed and refined at the time, wasn't the Merlin and the US license built Packard-Merlins (and to a lesser extent the Allisons) and the German DB 600 series and the Junkers Jumos really the first really successful mass produced iterations of water cooled engines?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Mosquitoes
We all tend to forget how many versions of the Hispano-Suiza 12Ys were out there. Yaks ran on the Soviet-built versions and there were many of those built.
Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
And there were many successful liquid-cooled engined fighters in WW1: SPAD 7/13, Fokker D7, Se5, Bristol Fighter, Albatros, and probably more.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
m:

Indeed. But I would further argue that by 1938 the weaknesses and strengths of both types were much better understood.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bill - Twas my understanding that Messerschmitt came up with a Bf.109T that was designed for the Graf Zeppelin. The main differences were inward folding main gear (instead of the 109's outward folding gear) and a slightly longer wingspan. If you can find some 109s to your scale it shouldn't be too hard to kitbash them into the carrier-based planes.
Regards, John Braungart
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Old Man wrote the following:

and a tailhook?
--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

g:> <br><blockquote type=cite>Does anybody make 1/700 Fw 190s? I think

Okay, nitpick me. Just don't tell SWMBO - that's HER job! 8^P
Regards, John Braungart
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I had a Bf109T in 1/72 (and got it built, too) that had the longer wingspan and tailhook but the LG was the same as a standard 109. I do not know if the model was correct or not. Data in my references is slight at best, pictures or drawings nonexistent.
Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.
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.