Mu17

I only just registered the reference to the He.162S two seater but WHICH two seater ? ALL books that I know of, refer to both the POWERED two seater as the He.162 S AND the two seat training glider as the He.162 S Although this is correct for internal Heinkel documents, original documentation confirms that the He.162S was the production two seat glider and that the powered two seater carried a different designation. The only model of the He.162S glider was I think a resin by RS (?) and not terribly accurate. In fact the glider only vaguely looks like the He.162 and is in fact an entirely new and different design with longer span, greater area, different fuselage, canopy, tail and undercarriage. Despite many modern drawings, it was NOT adapted from the standard production He.162. I'm hoping that the new kit is the powered two seater, although there is some uncertainty as to whether the fuselage was stretched and if so by 200 or 400mm. The poor instructor would have had a diabolically poor view, even with the bulged sides to his canopy (which are easy to overlook in the drawings). Escaping via falling out the bottom of the fuselage sounds a bit dubious too ! Surely there is a market for a 1/48 and 1/32 two seat conversion resin ?????? Paul

Of course the V tail and swept wing are projects only BUT - the designation He.162 B / C / D are completely ficticious. Paul

Thanks for taping the model together, it really does look very nicely made, with a sensible breakdown of parts to capture the flowing shape. Whilst I have one in 1/72, this is a must. As you say, its Luft 46 but a project that was being seriously studied and highly likely to have been built as a high speed testbed, even if not selected for series production. Paul

I largely agree with Mike/root admin - my attitude is that it might not be for me but I at least its going to bring a smile to someone's day. This might well be a case of Trumpeter testing the potential sales from a different part of the market - after all they are there to make money, not to deliver our wish lists. At the end of the day, its the bean counters who will decide. The larger companies may or may not scan the forums - I don't know but at least some of the small companies certainly do engage. To my surprise I received a response to a post that resulted in a new variant of a kit being introduced and having supplied drawings, the promise of other variants to come. Encouraged by that, I also directly contacted another company who were proposing a future Luft 46 kit on the forum. I pointed out that the particular design had been superseded by another - after an exchange and supply of drawings, that has resulted in an entirely different model that is in the process of being mastered. Sadly both companies are in the Ukraine. These have been my only contacts with producers, I'm pretty chuffed and maybe I just struck lucky. However, just wish listing and decrying what is on offer, is unlikely to achieve anything and does get rather tedious to read. Paul

Robertone, I have never been able to establish where the designation H.XVIII B-1 originated. Although the aircraft looks impressive, the drawing is dated 1946 - its definitely postwar. In my opinion, the date on the drawing might have been faked by the Hortens and its probab;ly much. probably later - if you look at the engine installations, they look like they have been copied from late 40's or early 50's American jet bombers. Tough news hearing that this model may take some time to materialise. Paul

Aaaarrrrggggghhhhhh Philistines ! Paul

I completely agree ! I also remain skeptical about the ability to even build the H.XVIII in the Kahla bunker because it was so big - even when broken down into three components. It certainly couldn't be carried up to the mountain top runway on the lift because it was too big (and heavy ?) and the idea of taking it up in parts and then assembling it, is laughable. Paul

Mike - don't get me wrong - I do believe in whatever lights your candle. However I do think there is a line between Luft46 - i.e. late Luftwaffe projects that were on the drawing board and other things that were pure fantasy. Some modellers assume that just because a model is available, the subject existed as a design - such as the fantasy Horten crescent shaped wing with ramjets at each tip. Violet Club - I completely agree that the B model with spatted undercarriage is horrible - but the design was real and an original 3 view exists to prove it. Documents also show it was this variant that was submitted in competition with the Ju.287 and Me.P.1107/II. It appears that the Hortens were told that the engines were not to be placed internally - yet those of the P1107/II were internal. Its intriguing that the official assessment of the design couldn't really fault it but right concluded there might be significant unknowns and that it would take a lot of development. The Hortens were then told to cooperate with Junkers. This MIGHT have resulted in the EF130 design but there is no documentation to confirm. There is nothing to support the Hortens claims that Junkers added a large fin. Horten drawings of such a design are usually reproduced with the data panal cropped off - in fact its a postwar design. Horten claims that they were ordered to start construction in the huge bunker at Kahla have not ( as far as I know) been verified and does not fit in with the little surviving documentation. Many of the Hortens statements must be seen in the light of them being expert spin doctors who were trying to get emplyment in the postwar years. Anyhow - hope the kit materialises sooner rather than later. Paul

I look forward to this model materialising, as I believe the old Sharkit offering had a very bad fit between the outer wings and the centre section - its no longer available anyway. The H.XVIIIA is of course a Luft 46 project and no original drawings exist, other than some artists impressions, so this is a reconstruction from those and known dimensions. Although the design is very elegant, it would never have been built as the Hortens formal design submission was the improbable looking H.XVIIIB with its huge spatted undercarriage and engines mounted either side of them. The designations A and B as far as I know, do not exist in any original documents. Contrary to the Hortens statements and those of other writers, Goering did not authorise construction and the H.XVIII was regarded purely as a design study. Myhras claims that a complete set of design drawings were completed is likewise unsupported and in reality they could not have been completed in the time available anyway. The story of the development of the H.XVIII A/B as told by the Hortens and recounted by Myhra, does not stand up to scrutiny as the timeline does not fit the few known facts. I am sure there are elements of truth there but the real story has yet to be uncovered. The model suggests an impressive array of external bombs and missiles. From my studies of the Hortens, I would question this. All Horten types had low directional stability and could yaw/crab unless constantly flown accurately, which is tiring. The additional external bombload MIGHT have been destabilising, if it was located forward of the CG and I wonder what would happen if the loads were dropped in pairs - would a bomb on one wing only, create a problematic assymetric yaw ? I am not an aerodynamicist and would welcome any informed comments. Please note that the superb and accurate drawings of the Ho,229 V3 and V3 by Arthur Bentley, show both bombs and drop tanks - but these are speculative and are NOT shown in any of the original construction drawings.. Paul

My model ordered via Ebay, has arrived OK, so that might encourage others to buy. It doesn't seem to be stocked by Hannants in the UK. Its one small way to help support the Ukraine.1 Lets hope that V2 and V6 will follow ........... a V6/two seater would be the icing on the cake. Paul

I took a gamble and ordered one off Ebay, direct from Ukraine. Paul

Phew - I thpught AMP were in the Ukraine, was I wrong ?? Paul

Brilliant and looks good to me. The separate control surfaces will help to create the correct 'look' especially for the outer Friese nosed elevons. The model will look quite different with the flaps drooped. There is every reason to believe that we will see an H.IX.V2 in due course - which was the only powered one to actually fly. Oddly, no one has previously produced a kit of the V2. The identical V3, V4 and V5 are well catered for in 1.72 by Revell and Zoukei Mura. I suggest that if folk want a V6 and a V6 two seater in 1/72, now is the time to shout, while we have AMP's attention. Paul

The parts breakdown is really well thought out to produce the flowing shape and should give a far better result than the conversion parts. Paul

OPM ???? Each to their own and all that. However, what is Luft46 ? The Ju.287 V1 and V2 existed, they were real, even though cobbled together from an He,177 and bits of Ju.188. Design of the the first production prototype Ju.287 was started but not finished before the end of the war........ should we ignore it (OK it was completed in Russia. Similarly the Hs.132 jet dive bomber was never completed, nor the production Me.263. Interestingly a German friend of mine adamantly maintains that if a plane never flew, it was no more than a project - I've mixed feelings about that. I would personally agree that many design studies were made for comparison with other layouts and were never seriously meant to lead to a flyable aircraft. Here I would agree that there is (usually) little merit in modelling them, although its fascinating to see in 3D the evolution of the Me.262 for instance. I sold off most of my collection of Luft 46 models and retained only those that were serious proposals or were developed in detail such as the Bv.P215 or on which metal was actually cut, such as the Ta.183. What I do dislike is fantasy models produced by companies that imply they were genuine studies such as the HG.IV with the pilot in a large triangular fin. Other incomplete projects rematerialised postwar - Me.P1101 as the Bell X5, Arado Ar234 V15 crescent wing on the Victor etc Paul

You must remember that HG.III was part of a progressive evolution / development at a time when there was no full scale data for highly swept wings, to validate the wind tunnel testing. The only aircraft to fly with a 60 degree swept wing was the Horten H.XIIIa glider, to explore low speed handing. The limitations of tunnel testing and lack of real world full scale experiment by the Germans is often overlooked. Really the Ju.287 is the only example. At the same time, its likely that Messerschmitt was to utilise as many standard Me.262 parts as possible. Whether HG.III was seen as anything more than a test aircraft is a moot point Ignoring a lot of the rather fanciful projects, that were really paper studies exploring the best way forward, the Me.P1110 and P1112 were serious projects and very much pointed toward the postwar line of jet development. Having said that - the kit looks superb ! Paul;

Can I thank you guys for such a swift and helpful response, my wife was most impressed - Modellers Rile ! Paul

After 50 years of Horten research, contributing to the Selinger/Horten book Nurflugel, editing one of David Myhras Horten booksand becoming good friends with Huib Ottens who wrote Spirit of Thuringia........ the search for the true Horten story continues. The Hortens were great self publicists and networkers with a talent for getting financial and political support. Consequently they had a flexible attitude to the truth and in Myhras interviews, you can see the brothers contradict both themselves and each other. Timelines are also distorted, successes sometimes exaggerated and failures simply edited out. Spirit of Thuringia remains the best book out there and contains Arthur Bentleys superb drawings. There is still more to be written about the development and testing of the Ho.IX/Ho.229. In particular the proposed production plans which were cancelled at least three times and at the end of the war only V3, V4. V5 were under construction ...... as per the Revell, Dragon and Zoukei Mura kits but only those three identical single seaters would have that appearance. The modified V6 would have been the first of 10 prototypes V6-15 and ONLY if they proved successful would series production be authorised - take note Luft 46 modellers. Paul

Here is a challenge -can anyone suggest any sources for the uniforms of the East India Company's private army, from the 1750's onwards, especially captains and colonels ? Also any histories ? My wife is writing a murder mystery partly set in India and is looking for authentic details, so I assured her that the best folk to ask were military modellers ! Thanks for any help Paul

Quite agree , although there are plenty of Ho.229 kits, other Hortens have been thin on the ground - Planet do an H.VII. Sharkit have produced H.IIIb, H.IIIf, H.XIIIa and H.XIIIb, H.X delta., also a badly fitting H.XVIIIa and a fundamentally inaccurate H.XVIIIb. Fruitbat did a very limited run of H.Vc but impossible to find. CMK produce and H.IVa - this is reboxed as an H.IVb which is totally wrong as wing sweep, airbrakes, canopy are different. Bird do a just about acceptable H.X Volksjager (sic) However, the H.I, H.II, H.IIm, H.IIIa, H.IIIc, H.IIId, H.IIIe, H.Va, H.Vb, Prabola, H.VI, H.XII, H.XIV remain unkitted. Paul

We were all expecting an H.IX.V2 - the only version of the H.IX/Ho229 that flew powered but instead we get a real surprise. This kit is the H.IX as it was originally designed and presented to Goering. The Hortens attempted to maximise performance by making the aircraft as small and as densely 'packed' as possible. However it is obvious that as designed, it was impractical because the wheels are far too small for the weight of the aircraft and too short to allow for rotation and side-slip landings. The Hortens imply that after Goerings approval, they were simply allowed to go ahead and build the H.IX - even though they had never built anything heavier or faster than the H,Vc light twin, which could be compared to a Miles Gemini. (Note that contrary to Horten statements, the H.VII twin did NOT fly until after the H.IX.VI) ). Despite the lack of documentation, it seems obvious that the RLM demanded a longer undercarriage and other significant alterations. So this isn't really a What If - its actually how the Ho.229 started life. However I hope that we will see the H.IX.V2 in due course - perhaps AMP will realise that there is also a market for the pre production V6 and even the two seater in 1/72. Paul

Bertie makes an interesting point, however I simply don't see the problem with models of uncompleted ships, they were after all proposed, designed and well on the way to completion. My main interest is German gliders and Luftwaffe jets. At one point I began to collect models of all German project aircraft, until my 'education' revealed that many were no more than basic design studies to compare various, often radical, configurations. Since then, I have restricted my self to types for which detail design was largely completed and/or construction started. Then again I have an interest in the technical development of these types, not 'just' as models. Personally, I think that any new aircraft, ship, tank, car, fantasy model - is to be welcomed, as it will make someones day, even if it leaves me cold. The only thing I really hate are kits which are sold as examples of unbuilt Luftwaffe projects but which are completely invented by the kit manufacturers. Discussions at Telford show that a surprising number of folk believe/assume these must be based on fact as a kit exists. Paul

I quite understand S-boat55's sentiment but from another perspective, its fascinating to see the planned line of development. I can 'read' a set of drawings better than most but being able to see a ship in 3D gives a much better understanding of what it would have been like.. Having said that, I would prefer a Schleswig Holstein in its WW1 form, in 1/200. I wonder how likely that is ??? Paul

The decal sheets for this model are perhaps the first available alternatives for sailplane models (???) and very welcome indeed. An exceptionally large number of alternative registrations are presented, which could easily be modified for use on other types. German sailplane models seem to be slowly growing in popularity but modellers will struggle to find many references - Martin Simons excellent books deal with many types but therefore cannot cover them with anything more than an overview and even on the internet, a relatively small number of photos can be found. Modellers should therefore be aware that contrary to much that has been published, German registrations in the 1930's and 40's actually appeared in a remarkable range of fonts, size and locations. Paul

I think Bird did a very basic and dubious EF126 in 1/72 many moons ago - this looks a truly excellent model, as is the Das Werke model in 1/32 Paul