Jump to content

Airfix 1/48 Junkers Ju87B-1 Stuka - the new one


Jeff Wilson

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Charlie Hugo said:

I don't mind the rivets but that apparent sink mark at the base of the rudder with the rivets running through will be very difficult to rectify and keep the rivet detail. Oh well resin replacement will solve that but should not of happened in the first place. And this is one of the moulded in the UK kits is it not?

 

Fill with a CA/talc mix (my standard filler) and reapply the rivets.

 

It might be molded in the UK but I didn't find the P-40 and better than Airfix's previous efforts (worse in some areas), with some areas which need a little bit of attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, woody37 said:

There seems to be a lot of criticism here for what looks like a very nice kit IMO, rivets will always divide opinion, I will be getting one of these and as with most builds will run the riveting tool over the surface and drop a bit of tippex in these to tone them down a bit. Not a major concern. My only complaint is that I don't have enough time to build all these Airfix kits being released as they keep releasing kits I want!

 

Woody,

 

I for one am very pleased to see this kit, it's a great representation of a previously un-kitted version of the Ju-87.

 

My objection is in this form of representing rivets - it's not realistic and to my mind, makes a kit, any kit which features them, more toy like.  Real aircraft do not feature divots like this for rivets, if the skin looked like this around a rivet it would be a pulled skin which requires replacing.  Rivets can be flush, dome or pan-head, there are the blind rivets like Cherrymax and Avdel which leave a proud head with a tiny dimple in it that would be microscopic in 1/48th scale, then there are high tension rivets like Hucks and Hi-Locks, all this before you get to Dzus or Camlock quick release fasteners or just plain old fashioned screws, nuts and bolts or spot welds. Most of these are proud of the surface.

 

If we're going to have fasteners can we have all of them accurately represented or none at all?  Personally I would prefer none at all in most cases as it would allow me to choose what I did.

 

I have no objection to modellers choosing to add rivets if they wish, it is after all their model and they can do with it what they like, I would just prefer not to have this foisted upon me.

 

I guess having daily touch time with aircraft gives me a different perspective to many.

 

Rant over!

 

And yes I will be getting this kit and yes, when I get around to making it, I will be filling in those so called rivets.

Edited by Wez
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Wez said:

 

Woody,

 

I for one am very pleased to see this kit, it's a great representation of a previously un-kitted version of the Ju-87.

 

My objection is in this form of representing rivets - it's not realistic and to my mind, makes a kit, any kit which features them, more toy like.  Real aircraft do not feature divots like this for rivets, if the skin looked like this around a rivet it would be a pulled skin which requires replacing.  Rivets can be flush, dome or pan-head, there are the blind rivets like Cherrymax and Avdel which leave a proud head with a tiny dimple in it that would be microscopic in 1/48th scale, then there are high tension rivets like Hucks and Hi-Locks, all this before you get to Dzus or Camlock quick release fasteners or just plain old fashioned screws, nuts and bolts or spot welds. Most of these are proud of the surface.

 

If we're going to have fasteners can we have all of them accurately represented or none at all?  Personally I would prefer none at all in most cases as it would allow me to choose what I did.

 

I have no objection to modellers choosing to add rivets if they wish, it is after all their model and they can do with it what they like, I would just prefer not to have this foisted upon me.

 

I guess having daily touch time with aircraft gives me a different perspective to many.

 

Rant over!

 

And yes I will be getting this kit and yes, when I get around to making it, I will be filling in those so called rivets.

 

In the case of this kit I would fill them because they are very incomplete, had they done a full rivet pattern I would just tone them down a bit rather than trying to fill completely, but lets hope Airfix don't go down this route with future kits!

 

As for realism, I think most people here know what rivets look like on an aircraft, but what they might prefer rivet holes on their models. It's a bit like weathering, which on some models the way it is done isn't necessarily that accurate, but some people prefer that on their models, of course that is left up to each modeller, but unfortunately model companies do seem to listen to modellers and lot of them seem to want rivet holes.  

 

Not to be picky (though I do about trade names), but the correct spelling is Hi-Lok ;) 

 

 

Edited by Tbolt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Tbolt said:

 

 

Not to be picky (though I do about trade names), but the correct spelling is Hi-Lok ;) 

 

 

 

You're right, they are Hi-Loks, what can I say, my own internal auto-correct got the better of me! :wall:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too am very familiar with real rivets and aircraft construction techniques.

 

The thing is that we modellers are not dealing with the same issues as real aircraft. What modellers are trying to achieve (and I agree that some go to great efforts to create something very unconvincing) is an impressionistic purely visual representation. People have different ways to try to achieve an impression of a scaled-down aircraft, and I think it's probably fair to say that most modellers can name one such technique that they personally don't like.

 

For some, it's rivets. Others don't like panel line washes. I don't like the idea of "scale colour" but my reason for that is that fading colours according to scale (as opposed to aging effects) requires one to hold the singular mindset that they are pretending to view a fullsize subject from far away, and if that's the case why bother with any detailing at all - you can't see it on an aeroplane sat half a mile away on the other side of an airfield - ergo if you're adding seatbelts and PE upgrades, you're closely examining the finished model and the half-mile-away premise starts to get a bit wobbly then.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎1‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 10:51 PM, Drift said:

Just paid for mine, should take two weeks to get here. Pity the new B17 is sold out, I wanted that also.

Sprue Brothers has the B-17 in stock.

 

Cheers

Brad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the subject of the aileron mass balances, on my most recent visit to the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry a couple months ago I was (as always) examining the Ju-87R and noticed an oddity I'd never noticed before.  Rather than the balance weights being streamlined against the slipstream, they're oriented vertically, with holes provided in the wing for them to slide into when the aileron is fully deflected.  I notice Airfix have correctly included this feature.  Might be old hat to the Stuka Experten, but it was an interesting tidbit to me.  Here's a closeup photo.. 

 

Cheers!

 

Steve

 

IMG_1127.jpg

Edited by Steve N
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Is it filled and painted or still in raw metal?

I know there is a terrific amount of new material in that aeroplane, given that it's made out of more than one utter wreck. 

 

The Hendon G-2 has visible rows of domed rivets up at the front of the fuselage, and that one is all-original. 

Edited by Work In Progress
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/19/2019 at 10:09 AM, Work In Progress said:

Is it filled and painted or still in raw metal?

My knowledge of Ju87 construction practice is very limited (I've only worked on light civil and agricultural aircraft and helicopters, and a DH.82): which areas would be filled?

On 6/19/2019 at 8:25 PM, Work In Progress said:

Well, I have no doubt about their ability to build something airworthy, but we all know the dangers of accepting largely new structure and things made of pieces of wrecks as being representative of original practice...

Were it someone other than FHCAM I might agree, but I doubt Paul Allen would've put so much money into something that wasn't correct.

 

I finally got myself the R kit for Christmas last year but so far only the prop is assembled: as I'm modelling Wknr.6234 I have to wait for new parts to be finished by Jason Muszala and the team before I can paint anything! But my goodness, what a beautiful kit in the box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...